Omotosho v. Giant Eagle, Inc. - 997 F. Supp. 2d 792 (N.D. Ohio 2014)

Rule:

The act declares that "it is the policy of the United States that all litigants in Federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes." 28 U.S.C. § 1861. The "fair cross section" language is drawn from the Supreme Court's jurisprudence defining criminal defendants' rights to a fair jury under the Sixth Amendment.

Facts:

This case had its genesis in the decision of Defendant Giant Eagle, Inc., a regional supermarket chain, to fire Plaintiff Ernest E. Omotosho as a stock clerk because he allegedly consumed an unpaid food item in violation of Defendant's workplace policy. Plaintiff presents the Court with a motion for a new trial. A trial of plaintiff's claim that he was wrongfully discharged from employment because of his race, African American, resulted in a unanimous verdict in favor of defendant. No African-Americans sat on the jury that rendered the verdict. No African-Americans were on the panel from which the jury was selected. Plaintiff asserts that he was denied his right to a jury selected from a fair cross section of the community, and, therefore, the jury selection process used by the Northern District of Ohio failed to comply with the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, 28 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq.

Issue:

Was the jury selection process used failed to comply with the jury selection and service act of 1968?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that because plaintiff failed to show that African Americans were systematically excluded from the jury selection process, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for a new trial. Although the motion is denied, the Court cannot ignore the startling evidence showing that African Americans have been, and are likely to continue to be, seriously underrepresented in the pool of qualified candidates available for jury service. The court further held that this underrepresentation hobbles the judicial system by diminishing the quality of jury deliberations, obstructing the capacity of juries to reach decisions reflecting the community's sense of justice, and threatening public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the courts. Thus, the Court will not pretend that a solution is readily or easily available. To preserve the promise of the fair and equal administration of justice, a greater commitment must be made to study, understand, and combat this insidious problem.