On April 9, 2010, the Northern District Court of Illinois issued an opinion in Andritzky v. Concordia University Chicago, affirming the well-established rule that “circumstantial evidence that is relevant and probative on any of the elements of a direct case of retaliation may be admitted and, if proven to the satisfaction of the trier of fact, support a case of retaliation.”

In 2009, Frank Andritzky filed a complaint against his former employer Concordia University Chicago (CUC) and CUC officials, alleging that CUC and its officials had violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).  Specifically, Andritzky alleged that during the period of 2002 – 2007, CUC violated USERRA by demoting him to probationary status, requiring him to sign multiple one-year contracts, and ultimately terminating his employment because of his military service.  In response, CUC argued that Andritzky’s claims arising before July 6, 2005 were time barred under the federal four-year catchall statute of limitations and thus, should be dismissed.  Additionally, CUC argued that the allegations in Andritzky’s claims should not be admissible as circumstantial evidence because the claims did not amount to a continuing violation but rather served as a series of related, but discrete, discriminatory acts.  While the district court agreed that the continuing violation doctrine was inapplicable to Andritzky’s claims, the court still sided with Andritzky, holding that circumstantial evidence is admissible where appropriate to support a case of retaliation.

Mr. Andritzky is represented by TELG Principals Scott Oswald and Adam Augustine Carter.  For more information about The Employment Law Group® law firm’s USERRA practice, click here.