Justly Prudent challenges forced jury waiver in race discrimination case against staffing firm

After 17 years of dedicated service, a staffing industry veteran says he was stripped of his Director title because of his race. Now his former employer wants to take away his right to have a jury hear his case—and Justly Prudent is fighting to stop it.

On March 27, 2026, Justly Prudent filed an opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike the jury demand in Causey v. Aerotek, Inc., et al., a race discrimination and retaliation case pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The filing argues that Aerotek cannot enforce a jury trial waiver that was buried in a take-it-or-leave-it employment agreement, especially when the right at stake was specifically created by Congress to protect employees bringing discrimination claims.

Sullivan Causey began working for Aerotek in April 2007 as a Recruiter. Over the next 17 years, he steadily rose through the company's ranks, progressing from Recruiter to Account Manager, to Divisional Practice Lead, to Director of Business Operations, and ultimately to Director of Recruiting Operations. His career at Aerotek is a story of sustained commitment and upward achievement.

According to the Complaint, Defendants removed Causey from the Director position he earned through nearly two decades of dedication—not because of his performance, but because of his race. Causey also claims that Defendants retaliated against him after he opposed race discrimination within the company.

Now, rather than face a jury of Causey's peers, Aerotek is asking the Court to enforce a jury trial waiver embedded in a standardized employment agreement that Causey was required to sign as a condition of keeping his job. The agreement was drafted entirely by Aerotek, presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and signed without the advice of an attorney.

Justly Prudent's opposition presents four independent grounds for denying Aerotek's motion. First, the filing argues that Aerotek cannot carry its burden of proving the waiver was knowing and voluntary. Causey had no opportunity to negotiate the agreement's terms, was not represented by counsel, and was not provided any meaningful explanation of the rights he was giving up. The fact that the waiver appeared in bold print does not, by itself, mean Causey understood the legal consequences of surrendering his right to a jury trial on his civil rights claims.

Second, the opposition argues that the jury waiver is unenforceable under Maryland's unconscionability doctrine. The agreement was procedurally unconscionable because Causey had no meaningful choice in that he could either sign or lose the career he had built over 17 years. It was substantively unconscionable because, while the waiver appeared mutual on its face, it operated in practice to benefit only Aerotek. Research shows that employment discrimination plaintiffs win at nearly double the rate before juries compared to bench trials, and receive significantly higher damage awards. A provision that predictably cuts a worker's chances of success in half while offering no real benefit to the employee is the definition of a one-sided deal.

Third, the filing invokes the Fourth Circuit's recent decision in Thomas v. EOTech, LLC (2026), which held that employers cannot contractually shorten the time employees have to file discrimination claims because doing so disrupts Congress's carefully designed system for enforcing civil rights laws. Justly Prudent argues the same logic applies here: when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, it created an integrated package that gave employees the right to seek compensatory and punitive damages and the right to have a jury decide those claims. Aerotek's waiver attempts to sever what Congress deliberately joined together.

Fourth, Justly Prudent contends that standalone jury waivers deserve heightened scrutiny because—unlike arbitration agreements, which are backed by the Federal Arbitration Act—there is no federal law or policy that supports enforcing them. Aerotek's argument that "if courts enforce arbitration agreements that take away more rights, then jury waivers should be enforced too" overlooks the source of that enforcement power entirely.

"Congress created the right to a jury trial in discrimination cases for a reason," said Managing Attorney Jordan D. Howlette. "It recognized that employees who face discrimination on the job deserve to have their cases heard by a jury of their peers. We intend to protect that right for Mr. Causey."

The case is Sullivan Causey, Jr. v. Aerotek, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:25-cv-2374-JRR), filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.