Henders v. hhgregg, Inc., 1:12-cv-01147

Henders, a juror in United States v. Hollnagel, contacted the court about a potential unlawful termination by hhgregg due to jury service.
The judge notified hhgregg of the claim and requested a response by February 9, 2012; hhgregg did not respond by February 17, 2012.
The court found probable merit and appointed counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1875(d)(1).
Henders was hired August 8, 2011 as a full‑time electronics sales associate at the hhgregg store in Arlington Heights; the store opened September 2011 and faced slow sales.
Sales associates are paid by commission but guaranteed minimum wage; draws are used to cover wages when commissions are low, with warnings for being in draw.
Henders was in draw for nearly all two‑week periods since hire, receiving two warnings; he was terminated on January 21, 2012 for a third draw after notifying about jury service.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there is probable merit to the claim of juror discrimination under § 1875	Henders claims termination was due to jury service.	hhgregg asserted termination due to being in draw and poor sales.	Probable merit found; claim likely to have merit.

Perkins v. Sara Lee Corp., 839 F. Supp. 393 (W.D. Va. 1994) (pretext evidence supports juror discrimination claim)