The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) is a federal law that protects the civilian employment of active and reserve component military personnel and veterans. USERRA is a straightforward law with a central objective: to not penalize service members for their service. While most employers have
Articles Discussing USERRA.
Executing a general release did not waive a former employee’s claims under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), a federal district court in Tennessee has ruled, granting summary judgment to the employee. Ward v. Shelby County, No. 2:20-cv-02407 (W.D. Tenn. June 25, 2021).
The Supreme Court of Virginia, in Clark v. Virginia Department of State Police, No. 151857 (Dec. 1. 2016), recently ruled that the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred a private plaintiff’s claim under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”) against the Virginia Department of State Police (“VSP”), an arm of the Commonwealth. The Clark decision has made clear that service members working for the Commonwealth of Virginia as the employer cannot bring a lawsuit alleging a violation of USERRA. This decision, however, does not impact the ability of the federal government to bring suit against a state for USERRA violations on behalf of an individual or a private plaintiff’s ability to sue a private employer under USERRA.
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) does not prohibit compelling a former employee to arbitrate his USERRA claims under an arbitration agreement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, has ruled. Ziober v. BLB Resources, Inc., No. 14-56374 (9th Cir. Oct. 14, 2016).
An employer did not violate the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) when it discharged an employee shortly after his return from active duty, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Cincinnati, has held. Slusher v. Shelbyville Hosp. Corp., No. 15-5256 (6th Cir. Oct. 26, 2015).