available for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 12203, the retaliation provision of the ADA. III. ANALYSIS ON RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT Because Hickman was not entitled to recover compensatory damages under her ADA retaliation claim, she was only entitled to seek equitable remedies for that claim. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1). Because she could only recover equitable remedies, Hickman had no statutory right to a jury trial on the ADA retaliation claim. However, in actions not triable of right by a jury, the court upon its own initiative may try any issue with an advisory jury. Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(c). The Court chose to do so here. The Court is not bound by the findings of the advisory jury and is free to adopt them in whole or in part or to totally disregard them. See Andrade v. Chojnac 04) (<HOLDING>); Nieto v. Kapoor, 268 F.3d 1208, 1217 (10th
holding that juveniles are not entitled to jury trials holding that rule 32hs notice requirement applies by its terms only to departures from a guidelines range holding that the confrontation clause applies only to trials and not to sentencing hearings holding that by its terms rule 50 applies only to jury trials holding that the strictures of rule 50 do not apply in nonjury trials