Dean v. Gadsden Times Publishing Corp.
Headline: Court upholds Alabama law requiring employers to pay employees their regular wages minus jury fees during jury service, reversing a lower court and allowing workers to recover lost income.
Holding: The Court reversed, holding that Alabama may require employers to pay employees their usual wages minus jury pay when serving on a jury, and that this requirement does not unlawfully deprive employers of property.
- Requires Alabama employers to make up employee pay lost to jury duty.
- Protects workers from losing wages while serving on juries.
- Prevents challengers from using old due-process arguments to block the law.
Summary
Background
An Alabama employee sued his employer after serving on a jury and receiving jury pay. State law says an employee excused for jury duty is entitled to their usual job pay reduced by any jury fees. The employee billed $63 as the difference, the trial court sided with him, but the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals declared the state law unconstitutional. The State’s highest court denied review, and the case came to the Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The key question was whether the Alabama law unlawfully takes property from employers in violation of the Constitution. The Court rejected older cases that struck down similar economic regulations and relied on a more recent approach that leaves ordinary business and social decisions to legislatures. Citing a precedent that upheld a statute requiring employers to pay employees while they vote, the Court said laws that impose modest financial burdens on businesses to protect civic participation are permissible. The Court reversed the state appellate decision and sustained the Alabama statute.
Real world impact
The ruling means employees in Alabama who serve on juries can recover the difference between their regular wages and any jury pay under the state law. Employers in Alabama must follow the statute and cannot rely on the older due-process theory to avoid the obligation. Because the Supreme Court reversed the lower court, the state law will be enforceable under the Court’s reasoning going forward.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?