In the first article, Woodfield provides advice for extracting inaccuracies and conflicting information from employers and how to deal with difficult deponents.  According to Woodfield, it’s important not to linger once you uncover an inconsistency, “[b]y the time they realize what they’re saying and the conflict they’ve just created, that’s your clue to get out of the subject matter.” 

In the second piece, Woodfield talks about examining a client’s history for inaccuracies that the employer may try to exploit and how to help a client relax yet remain guarded.  “The most dangerous defense counsel are very often not the ones yelling at them because that keeps my clients guarded,” notes Woodfield. 

For more information about The Employment Law Group® law firm, click here.

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.

The judge concluded that the defendants’ failure to support their argument with any “closely related document” was sufficient to deny the motion and found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict.  She agreed that the employer’s excuses were pretextual and rejected any notion that the award was not fully supported by the evidence introduced at trial.  In particular, she held that an employer may not “refuse to reemploy [a military service member] on the basis that another employee was hired to fill the reemployment position during the [military member’s] absence, even if reemployment might require the termination of that replacement employee.” 

For more information on The Employment Law Group® law firm and its USERRA Practice, click here.

This decision is significant because it reminds employers that USERRA does not provide “immunity from liability for … tortious conduct” that is separate and independent of a veteran’s USERRA claim.  For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s USERRA practice, click here.

The judgment, which appears to be the largest judgment under a federal law protecting the employment rights of servicemen, is significant because it affirms the rights of all returning reservists and reminds employers that discrimination against servicemen will not be tolerated. 

The opinion and order in Serricchio v. Wachovia Sec. LLC, No. 3:05cv1761 (D. Conn. March 19, 2009) is available here.  For more information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s USERRA Practice, click here.

• Clarifying that USERRA prohibits wage discrimination;
• Prohibiting mandatory pre-dispute arbitration in claims that arise under USERRA;
• Granting employees the right to a jury trial in cases against private, local and state government employers;
• Clarifying that a merger, acquisition, or other form of succession is not necessary to impose successor liability under USERRA;  and
• Clarifying that Section 4302 of the Act applies to both substantive and procedural rights.

The bill would also require a mandatory minimum of $10,000 to be awarded to employees in all cases in which a violation is found, unless the employer can prove that it took its actions in good faith.  Additionally, the bill would provide for awards of punitive damages where an employee presents evidence that the employer acted willfully or recklessly when it violated USERRA.

The bill has been referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity.  Hopefully, Congress will promptly enact H.R. 1474 and its companion bill in the Senate (S.263) to close the loopholes in the current law and ensure that servicemembers’ and veterans’ rights are effectively enforced under USERRA.  For more information on USERRA rights and legislation, visit The Employment Law Group® law firm’s USERRA Practice at http://www.employmentlawgroup.net/PracticeAreas/USERRAVeterans.asp.

The Employment Law Group® law firm routinely represents returning veterans who have been discriminated against on the basis of their military services.  For more information about USERRA and The Employment Law Group® law firm’s USERRA practice, click here.

The district court granted Metro’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Metro’s return-to-work procedures could be applied to Petty because they were applicable to all individuals regardless of military service.  The Sixth Circuit reversed, concluding that USERRA prohibits an employer’s adoption of any policy, plan or practice that creates additional prerequisites to a service member’s statutory right to reemployment.  Finding that Petty’s failure to provide the separation papers he received from the military was “statutorily unnecessary” to exercise his right to reemployment, the Sixth Circuit remanded the case to the district court.