Is the US Government really capable of providing support and/or legal assistance for a juror who is fired and/or is in some way punished by his/her employer because s/he missed work to serve jury duty?
It is a well known fact that an employer, at least in theory, is not permitted to fire, demote, or punish an employee as a result of his/her missing work due to jury duty. Having said that, it is important to ask ourselves the following question: Is the US Government (in the year 2015) really in a position to help such an employee? We are inundated with news reports of “cash-strapped states” and government departments having to cut staff for budgetary reasons. For example, the IRS recently admitted and explained that due to budget cuts, it would not be able to take a large percentage of phone calls from taxpayers who had questions and/or needed help.
In plain English, our country is “sinking like a stone,” and is gasping its last few dying breaths. In this current socioeconomic climate, what kind of help from the government can a juror really depend upon? We don't know from one day to the next if the government at the local, state, or federal level will even be in operation. I would consider it a “miracle” if a clerk at the county courthouse managed to respond to a juror's request for employment-related help weeks later by mailing a vaguely threatening letter to the employer via standard, non-trackable postal mail. The majority of Americans live in districts that are nearly if not completely financially defunct.
It should be noted that even if an employee is fired relatively soon after having served on jury duty, it may still be difficult to prove (in a legal sense) that the termination was directly due to such. There is a bigger concern, though. It is very easy for an employer to punish an employee in such subtle ways that it would be difficult if not impossible for the employee to prove (again, in a legal sense) that the matter had something to do with his/her jury service. Furthermore, many people have jobs in which their work simply builds up when they are out of work whether they are absent due to illness, personal days, family emergencies, vacation, or indeed jury duty. If a juror is concerned about this, it is highly doubtful that s/he will be able to perform his/her duties as juror effectively.
It is understandable that some people choose to disregard their summonses and/or fib their way out of being selected for a lengthy case (if any case) due to employment-related fears. Unless the government can prove that it has the time and resources to investigate and potentially bring charges against an employer should such be necessary, court districts need to stop perpetrating the illusion of support in this matter. Furthermore, considering that so many Americans (including the middle class) are living paycheck-to-paycheck (if not day by day), and are essentially “hanging onto life by a thread,” the last thing people should have to be worry about is whether jury duty will end up bankrupting them. If they can't serve at a given time (or even for an extended period of time), then they can't, and the matter needs to be dropped.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents
In plain English, our country is “sinking like a stone,” and is gasping its last few dying breaths. In this current socioeconomic climate, what kind of help from the government can a juror really depend upon? We don't know from one day to the next if the government at the local, state, or federal level will even be in operation. I would consider it a “miracle” if a clerk at the county courthouse managed to respond to a juror's request for employment-related help weeks later by mailing a vaguely threatening letter to the employer via standard, non-trackable postal mail. The majority of Americans live in districts that are nearly if not completely financially defunct.
It should be noted that even if an employee is fired relatively soon after having served on jury duty, it may still be difficult to prove (in a legal sense) that the termination was directly due to such. There is a bigger concern, though. It is very easy for an employer to punish an employee in such subtle ways that it would be difficult if not impossible for the employee to prove (again, in a legal sense) that the matter had something to do with his/her jury service. Furthermore, many people have jobs in which their work simply builds up when they are out of work whether they are absent due to illness, personal days, family emergencies, vacation, or indeed jury duty. If a juror is concerned about this, it is highly doubtful that s/he will be able to perform his/her duties as juror effectively.
It is understandable that some people choose to disregard their summonses and/or fib their way out of being selected for a lengthy case (if any case) due to employment-related fears. Unless the government can prove that it has the time and resources to investigate and potentially bring charges against an employer should such be necessary, court districts need to stop perpetrating the illusion of support in this matter. Furthermore, considering that so many Americans (including the middle class) are living paycheck-to-paycheck (if not day by day), and are essentially “hanging onto life by a thread,” the last thing people should have to be worry about is whether jury duty will end up bankrupting them. If they can't serve at a given time (or even for an extended period of time), then they can't, and the matter needs to be dropped.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents