Jury Duty Pay, Is It Enough?

Many Americans describe jury service as a duty and "part of being a good citizen." Despite sixty-seven percent of Americans holding these views, some Americans don't show up for jury duty. Indeed, achieving a high jury summons response rate has proved difficult. 

For instance, in Texas, one news report cited a study which found that "as many as 80 percent of those summoned for jury duty simply fail to show up." Thus, why is there a low juror response rate? After all, most Americans view jury service as a civic duty. 

Juror Compensation is Lower than Minimum Wage

One problem with jury response rate is the low pay rate which jurors are compensated. A real practical problem is that jurors have no financial incentive and possibly no financial ability to participate in jury service. 

According to the Texas Judicial Branch, compensation for jury members per day is set at a minimum of $6 and a maximum of $50. Another problem is that individual counties have wide discretion whether to offer additional compensation such as free parking, transportation reimbursement, free meals, and other compensation options. By comparison, federal minimum wage law requires nonexempt employees to receive at minimum $7.25 per hour. For many potential jurors, the low compensation amount for jury service is too burdensome even if a potential juror wishes to serve. 

A reasonable question is why jury service compensation continue to remain so low. How can this be solved? 

Solutions to Increase Juror Compensation 

One possible solution is for employers to cover the cost of their employee's jury service. However, currently there is no federal law that requires employers to pay employees for time spent not working. 

However, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, states may pass their own state laws and require employers to pay employees even while they are in jury service. In fact, eight states have passed laws which require employers to pay employees for time spent in jury service. 

Similarly, some counties in Texas, have called for county action and asked county commissioners to enact similar laws to improve juror response rates. For instance, in Harris County, Texas, one proposal "would give jurors $50 for the first day and $80 for subsequent days, compared to what they are currently receiving, which is $6 the first day and $40/day after that." Proposals such as these are needed if the goal is to ensure a diverse potential jury pool and not disproportionately effect low-income earners. This is because most employers who voluntarily pay employees for time off while serving on jury duty are most likely employers with "full time workers, high-salary earners, and employees of companies with 500 or more workers." 

States Should Adopt California's Approach

An additional measure would be a targeted approach. In order to combat inadvertently excluding financially burdened low-income earners from jury service, a first step for states would be to adopt measures to increase daily jury pay compensation. For example, after thirty years, federal courts increased jury pay from $40 to $50 per day. But similar jury compensation increases have not occurred in the states. 

However, California, has at least taken a more targeted approach. California enacted a pilot program called "Be the Jury," which is designed to assist low income jurors and provide $100 per day compensation. If states want to ensure that a diverse jury pool exists in their state justice system, then lessening the financial burdens for jury service is a good start. 

In sum, there are multiple ways to ensure jurors are able to participate in jury service, but changes to the current system are needed in multiple ways.