In a November 12, 2013 opinion in Pruett v. BlueLinx Holdings, Inc., the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia held that whistleblowers bringing a retaliation claim under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank) are not entitled to punitive damages or to a jury trial (No. 13-cv-02607 (N.D. Ga., Nov. 12, 2013)).

Jeffrey Pruett (Pruett) sued BlueLinx Holdings, Inc. (BlueLinx) under the whistleblower protections of Dodd-Frank, alleging his employment was unlawfully terminated in retaliation for reporting certain alleged violations to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC). Pruett's prayer for relief included a request for punitive damages and a jury trial. BlueLinx filed a partial motion to dismiss, arguing that neither punitive damages nor a jury trial are available under the Dodd-Frank whistleblower protections. In response, Pruett conceded that punitive damages are not available but maintained that he was entitled to a jury trial.

Noting that the Dodd-Frank whistleblower provisions are silent as to whether a jury trial is available, the court analyzed whether Dodd-Frank whistleblowers are entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment using a two-part inquiry. The court noted that even though the first factor, which considers the nature of the claim, weighed in favor of a jury trial, the second factor, which considers the nature of the remedy, is more important in determining a plaintiff's right to a jury trial. The court determined that the whistleblower remedies available under Dodd-Frank are equitable and therefore the plaintiff did not have a right to a jury trial.

Employers will likely welcome this decision as it removes the risk and uncertainty of a jury trial for Dodd-Frank whistleblower claims, which are becoming more prevalent against employers.