Lowe’s Allegedly Terminated Service Member Without Just Cause
- Article Information
- Published on Friday, 04 November 2011 05:47
Lowe’s, a national hardware store chain, has agreed to settle a complaint brought by the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) which alleged that the company violated the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) when it terminated Matthew King, a U.S. Army Guard member and Iraq War veteran, allegedly without just cause. The settlement includes a lump sum payment of $45,000 to King, for back pay and liquidated damages. USERRA requires employers to reemploy a service member returning from military duty to a position the employee would have attained had they not been called to military service. After reemploying a service member the employer must also retain the service member in employment for a year unless there is good cause to terminate the employment, which thereby alters the “at will” status under which many individuals are usually employed. Lowe’s hired King in April 2008. In September 2008, King provided Lowe’s a copy of his military orders deploying him to Iraq. King spent approximately one year in Iraq and returned in May 2010 after being honorably discharged. Upon his return, King initially sought unemployment benefits on the basis of his federal military discharge, although he did not receive benefits. He then sought reemployment with Lowe’s and was rehired. Soon thereafter, Lowe’s human resource department received notice of King’s initial application for unemployment benefits and summoned him to a meeting. Although King explained to the human resources personnel that he had applied for unemployment before being reemployed by Lowe’s, due to the fact that he had been discharged by the military, Lowe’s terminated King, allegedly without further investigating the matter, even though King attempted to provide information from Oregon’s unemployment office to Lowe’s that would have clarified the matter. According to Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, “Our service members need to know we will have their backs at home, including the right to have their job restored with their former employer when they return home after serving our country...The Justice Department will vigorously enforce the law to ensure that an individual who has sacrificed so much to serve this country has a fair opportunity to be reemployed as the law provides.” Read More.
Proposed Legislation Expands USERRA Rights Of Veterans On Medical Leave
- Article Information
- Published on Wednesday, 14 September 2011 03:48
U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett has reintroduced the Wounded Veteran Job Security Act (H.R. 2875), legislation which he authored that expands the rights of veterans under the Uniformed Services and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) who are on service-related medical leave. In general, the proposed legislation protects veterans against discrimination in the workplace for time spent receiving treatment for injuries and disabilities caused by their service. According to Congressman Dogget, “This legislation is the result of problems that local veterans raised during discussions with me...They said, 'Wounded veterans should not be fired after they exhaust their sick and vacation days to receive care for injuries suffered while defending our Nation.' I agreed. They said, ‘There ought to be a law supporting our veterans.’ I agreed. And, I said that when my colleagues learn what some of our veterans are facing, they will agree with us too.” Over 45,000 Americans have been wounded as a result of their military service in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Wounded Veteran Job Security Act would: (1) Entitle veterans to protected leave for the treatment of service-related medical conditions; (2) Grant these service members the seniority and other rights and benefits they had prior to receiving treatment; and (3) Ensure these service members receive the same rights and benefits as other employees who are on furlough or a leave of absence. The Wounded Veteran Job Security Act has been endorsed by the American Legion, the Reserve Officers Association, Disabled American Veterans, and Veterans for Common Sense. Read More.
DOJ Files Suit Against Employer To Enforce Reemployment Rights Of Service Member
- Article Information
- Published on Friday, 08 April 2011 07:00
The Justice Department (DOJ) has filed a lawsuit alleging that Air Methods Corp. and LifeMed Alaska LLC willfully violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) by failing to reemploy a military service member, Jonathon L. Goodwin. Pursuant to USERRA, an employer is prohibited from discriminating against service members because of their membership in the military, past military service or future service obligations. In addition, USERRA requires that service members who leave their civilian jobs to serve in the military must be reemployed promptly by their employers in the positions they would have held if their employment had not been interrupted by military service or in positions of comparable seniority, pay and status. Goodwin has been a member of the Army National Guard for almost 20 years, with honorable service as both a fixed-wing and helicopter pilot. The DOL alleges that Goodwin was employed by Air Methods as a helicopter pilot when he was called upon for a nine month period of active duty, including a period of deployment to Iraq. According to the DOJ, at the end of his deployment, Goodwin sought reemployment by Air Methods as a contract helicopter pilot position with LifeMed Alaska. However, the DOJ alleges that LifeMed refused to accept Goodwin for the contract position due to LifeMed's alleged bias against recently returned service members. Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, commented that "When Congress enacted USERRA, it was to protect our men and women in uniform from experiencing exactly this kind of injustice...The Justice Department is committed to vigorously enforcing federal laws that protect the employment rights of our service members."...
U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Employee in Discrimination Case
- Article Information
- Published on Thursday, 03 March 2011 06:15
In Staub v. Proctor Hospital (Proctor), Vincent Staub, an Army reservist and a civilian technician at an Illinois hospital, sued his employer after he was terminated for allegedly failing to follow a supervisor's directive; Mr. Staub claimed that his military obligations were a motivating factor in the termination. Specifically, Mr. Staub claimed that two of his supervisors were hostile to him because his military obligations required that he be absent from work one weekend a month and two or three weeks a year. However, Protor argued that the human resources officer who actually terminated Mr. Staub did not share that hostility towards his military obligations. Mr. Staub countered that although the human resources officer may not have been motivated by hostility towards his military obligations, his supervisors were, and their actions influenced the human resources officer. A jury awarded Mr. Staub about $58,000, but the federal appeals court in Chicago reversed, concluding that the human resources officer had relied on more than the supervisor's advice in making the termination decision. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Specifically, the Court noted that "if a supervisor performs an act motivated by antimilitary animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is the proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable under USERRAProtor errs in contending that an employer is not liable unless the de facto decisionmaker is motivated by discriminatory animus. . . Proctor's approach would have an improbable consequence: If an employer isolates a personnel official from its supervisors, vests the decision to take adverse employment actions in that official, and asks that official to review the employee's personnel file before taking the adverse action, then the employer will be effectively shielded from discriminatory acts and recommendations of supervisors that were designed and intended to produce the adverse action. Proctor also errs in arguing that a decisionmaker's independent investigation, and rejection, of an employee's discriminatory animus allegations should negate the effect of the prior discrimination." The Court left it to the appeals court to determine whether to reinstate the jury verdict in Mr. Staub's case or order a new trial....
Employers Must Reemploy Service Members After Military Leave
- Article Information
- Published on Thursday, 20 January 2011 20:53
A recent settlement on behalf of U.S. Army reservist Miguel Orozco Garduo (Orozco), obtained in a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) against Titan Laboratories Inc. (Titan), highlights the fact that employers must reemploy service members after their military leave. The DOJ filed a lawsuit against Titan alleging that that the company willfully violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) by discriminating against and failing to reemploy Orozco after he returned from military leave. Pursuant to the settlement, Titan and its owner must pay Orozco $21,000 in back pay. The DOJ's complaint alleges that while Orozco was away on military leave, Titan terminated Orozco's employment because of his military obligations and hired as a permanent replacement someone who did not have such obligations. The complaint also alleges that when Orozco completed his military service and requested reemployment, Titan refused to reemploy him because he had been replaced. According to Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, "The men and women who serve in the military must be able to do so without fear that they will lose their civilian jobs as a result of their service. This case demonstrates the Justice Departments commitment to vigorously enforcing federal laws that protect the employment rights of our service members."...
