In Pruett v. BlueLinx Holdings, Inc., No. 13-02607 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 12, 2013), Jeffrey Pruett filed suit against BlueLinx Holdings, Inc., contending that he was terminated from his job in retaliation for his reporting certain alleged violations to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and the Security and Exchange Commission, a violation of the whistleblower protections of Dodd-Frank. Plaintiff demanded a jury trial. Dodd-Frank is silent as to whether a jury trial is available to whistleblowers, so the court conducted a Seventh Amendment analysis. Although it originally only preserved the right to a jury trial for common law actions existing at the time of the Seventh Amendment’s adoption, Courts have extended the Seventh Amendment to all suits where legal rights are involved. The right to a jury trial may exist where the nature of the issues to be resolved are analogous to actions brought in English courts prior to the merger of law and equity and where the remedy sought is legal in nature. The BlueLinx court found that the remedies being sought—reinstatement, hiring, and back pay—are generally considered equitable. Plaintiff argued that because Dodd-Frank provides for doubling of back pay, it turned the remedy into a legal one. The court held that automatic doubling is a calculation lacking the discretion associated with monetary jury damages, and thus the back pay remained equitable. Thus, the plaintiff was not entitled to a jury trial.