Greenlaw v. Su
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:18-cv-04932
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Greenlaw v. Micone, Judge DeMarchi ordered a jury trial while reserving whether Greenlaw’s monetary relief is legal or equitable.
Rosemary Greenlaw and Vincent N. Micone; the order determines that the scheduled trial will proceed before a jury while leaving the final treatment of Greenlaw’s monetary relief for possible later briefing.
What happened
In Greenlaw v. Micone, Rosemary Greenlaw brings a disability-discrimination claim under the Rehabilitation Act in connection with federal employment. The parties disputed whether her requested monetary relief should be treated as back pay or damages.
The defendant argued that the requested relief was back pay, which the defendant said is equitable relief for the court to decide. Greenlaw argued that it was legal damages for a jury and alternatively requested an advisory jury. The court said it was not prepared to decide the issue before trial.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi ordered the case to proceed with the jury trial scheduled for March 10, 2025. After trial, the parties may brief whether the monetary relief is legal or equitable and whether the jury’s verdict should be advisory.
The detailed version
- Greenlaw v. Su · No. 5:18-cv-04932
- Virginia Demarchi
- Mar. 9, 2025
Background
Rosemary Greenlaw asserts a disability-discrimination and disparate-treatment claim involving federal employment. The court held that section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act provides the sole remedy for alleged disability discrimination in federal employment. Section 501 incorporates the remedies, procedures, and rights provided by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The court addressed whether Greenlaw’s requested monetary relief should be tried to a jury or decided by the court. The opinion does not state the amount of relief sought.
The parties’ positions
The defendant argued that Greenlaw’s requested monetary relief should be characterized as back pay. The defendant maintained that back pay is equitable relief and therefore should be tried to the court rather than a jury.
Greenlaw appeared to agree that her requested relief was not front pay, but argued that it was not back pay under the relevant Title VII provision because she was not also seeking reinstatement. She characterized the relief as legal damages that must be tried to a jury. Alternatively, she requested an advisory jury, whose verdict could be treated as guidance for the court rather than as the final decision.
Court’s analysis
The court said it was not prepared at that time, and under the circumstances presented, to decide whether Greenlaw’s requested monetary relief was back pay. It also was not prepared to decide whether the treatment of back pay as an equitable remedy clearly precludes treating back pay as a legal remedy in all circumstances.
Ruling
The court ordered that the case proceed with the jury trial scheduled to begin on March 10, 2025. After trial, if a dispute remained about whether the requested monetary relief was legal or equitable, the court would give the parties an opportunity to submit additional briefing. That briefing could address whether the jury’s verdict should be considered advisory and whether the court should decide the matter using the existing trial record.
The order decides the trial procedure for the scheduled trial but does not resolve the ultimate classification of Greenlaw’s monetary relief or the underlying discrimination claim.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.