Mar 27, 2026
Sullivan Causey spent 17 years building his career at Aerotek, one of the largest staffing companies in the country. He started as a Recruiter in 2007 and worked his way up to Director of Recruiting Operations. By any measure, it was a career defined by loyalty and hard work.
But according to a federal lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Aerotek took that career away from Causey because of his race. The Complaint says Defendants removed him from his Director position and retaliated against him when he spoke up about discrimination.
Now Aerotek is trying to take something else: his right to a jury trial.
On March 27, 2026, Justly Prudent filed a formal opposition to Aerotek's attempt to block Causey from having a jury hear his case. The company is pointing to a clause in an employment agreement that Causey signed — a standardized, non-negotiable document that he was required to sign to keep his job. No lawyer reviewed it with him. No one explained what he was giving up. And he had no power to change a single word.
In the opposition, Justly Prudent makes a straightforward argument: you cannot strip an employee of a right that Congress specifically created to protect people in exactly his situation.
When Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, it did something deliberate. It gave workers who face discrimination on the job the right to seek real damages—and the right to have a jury, not just a judge, decide their case. These two rights were designed to work together. You do not get to keep one and throw away the other.
The filing also highlights a striking reality: research shows that employees who bring discrimination cases win nearly twice as often before juries as they do before judges, and receive significantly higher awards. A waiver that looks equal on paper—both sides give up their jury right—is anything but equal when only one side will ever need that right.
Justly Prudent's opposition presents four separate legal reasons why the court should reject Aerotek's motion. It argues the waiver was not truly voluntary, that it is unconscionable under Maryland law, that it impermissibly undermines Congress's civil rights protections, and that there is no federal policy supporting the enforcement of standalone jury waivers.
For more information, read the official press release at: https://www.justlyprudent.com/press-releases/former-employee-fights-to-protect-right-to-jury-trial-in-employment-discrimination-case