In the case of Perkins v. Standard Oil Co. of California in 1969, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that an employer could not fire an employee for serving on a jury. The plaintiff, Mr. Perkins was fired from his job at Standard Oil after he missed work to serve as a juror in a murder trial which lasted nine days and caused him to miss work without permission from his employer. He sued under federal law claiming wrongful termination but lost in lower courts because there were no explicit protections for jurors against employment retaliation at the time. The Supreme Court reversed those decisions, ruling unanimously that public policy required protection for employees who fulfill their civic duty by serving on juries even if it inconveniences employers or causes temporary hardship due to absence from work during such service period. This landmark decision established important legal precedent protecting workers' rights and promoting active citizen participation within the judicial process by eliminating fear of reprisal or loss of livelihood due to fulfilling one's civic duties as a juror.

In the dissenting opinion for Perkins v. Standard Oil Co. of California, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to allow a private party to sue under antitrust laws was misguided and could lead to an overabundance of litigation without clear guidelines or standards. He believed that Congress intended these laws primarily as a tool for government enforcement rather than private lawsuits, and he feared this ruling would open up companies to potentially frivolous claims from any individual who felt they were harmed by alleged anti-competitive behavior. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the potential financial burden on businesses forced to defend themselves against such suits, which might discourage competition rather than promote it.