Hollins v. Hoechst Celanese Corp.
District Court, S.D. Alabama
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
HOWARD, Chief Judge.
This cause is before the Court on the defendant’s motion to hold the plaintiff’s jury demand insufficient. The plaintiff claims are premised upon Title VII and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. Although the plaintiff clearly is not entitled to a jury trial on his Title VII claim, the defendants maintain that the plaintiff has waived his right to a jury trial on his section 1981 claim because he did not serve a jury demand on the defendants in accordance with Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff’s position is that checking the “Yes” box next to “Jury…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Virgil Cochran v. Francis J. Birkel, Virginia Hager, Bettie Klontz, and Kathy Rubens, All IndividuallyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1981
- Henry Wade Cox v. C. H. Masland & Sons, Inc., a Corporation, and Textile Workers Union of America, Local 1882Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
- Houston North Hospital Properties v. Telco Leasing, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1982
- Favors v. CoughlinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1989
3Cited by3 opinions
- Early v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1994
- Bryant v. Washington Federal Bank, IncDistrict Court, D. New Mexico · 2023
- Kimberly G. Harris v. Bridgestone Americas, Inc. d/b/a Firestone Complete Auto Care, et al.District Court, S.D. Alabama · 2026