434 U.S. 575 (1978)
Respondent Pons commenced this action against petitioner Lorillard, her former employer, alleging that she had been discharged because of her age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. In the complaint she sought reinstatement, lost wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs. Respondent demanded a jury trial on all issues of fact.1
Petitioner moved to strike the demand for a jury trial. The District Court granted the motion to strike but certified the jury trial issue for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).2
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit allowed the appeal and vacated the District Court's order. The court of appeals ruled that the ADEA and the Seventh Amendment afford respondent the right to a jury trial on her claim for lost wages, citing 549 F. 2d 950, 952-953 (1977).3
The Supreme Court granted certiorari, 433 U. S. 907 (1977), to resolve the conflict in the Circuits on this issue. The case was argued on December 6, 1977, and decided on March 1, 1978.4
Whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 affords a right to a jury trial in private civil actions for lost wages?5
The enforcement scheme for the ADEA incorporates the FLSA provisions, and actions for lost wages are to be treated as actions for unpaid minimum wages or overtime compensation under the FLSA.6 Because it was well established that there was a right to a jury trial in private actions pursuant to the FLSA, Congress is presumed to have intended the same right under the ADEA.7 The use of the term 'legal' relief in the ADEA further confirms this intent.8
Yes. Respondent Pons commenced this action against petitioner Lorillard, her former employer, alleging that she had been discharged because of her age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. In the complaint she sought reinstatement, lost wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs. Respondent demanded a jury trial on all issues of fact.
Petitioner moved to strike the demand for a jury trial. The District Court granted the motion to strike but certified the jury trial issue for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit allowed the appeal and vacated the District Court's order. The court of appeals ruled that the ADEA and the Seventh Amendment afford respondent the right to a jury trial on her claim for lost wages.9 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict in the Circuits on this issue.10
The ADEA provides that amounts owing as a result of a violation are deemed unpaid minimum wages under the FLSA and the rights are enforced in accordance with the powers, remedies, and procedures of the FLSA. Since every court to consider the issue had held there was a right to jury trial in private FLSA actions, that right carries over to ADEA actions for lost wages. Congress demonstrated detailed knowledge of the FLSA and selectively incorporated provisions, indicating it intended to incorporate the jury trial right as well.11
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 affords a right to a jury trial in private civil actions for lost wages.12