Military Leaves from Work Heavily Protected
Published by James Peters February 15th, 2007 in Discrimination, Wrongful TerminationOne of the strongest job protections for employees in the United States is for those who take a leave of absence to serve in the armed forces. I have seen a dramatic increase in these claims in just the past year and I recently filed a federal lawsuit for a client in San Francisco for some egregious violations.
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 ("USERRA") requires employers to provide employees with up to five years of leave to serve in the military.
When an employee returns from military service, their employer must return them to their old position at the same rate of pay without any loss of seniority or benefits based on seniority, such as raises and vacation pay.
These protections still apply even if the employee has been replaced. If the employee's position no longer exists, the employer usually must give them an equivalent position.
Additionally, an employee who returns from military leave cannot be terminated without cause for 180 days following their return. This is by far the strongest job protection provided by any federal or state employment law.
Of course, the real reason for this law is to tell recruits that their jobs will be protected if they need to take a military leave. However, if the Democratic Congress succeeds in pulling our troops out of Iraq sometime in the near future, the real effect of these protections will come into play as thousands of troops reenter the workforce.
As these employees begin returning to work and employers have to deal with accommodating them, some will simply ignore the law and hope the employee does not sue them. If you know someone who is returning from military duty, make sure they know their rights.
Tags
California Employment Law | Discrimination | Military Discrimination | Wrongful Termination
Related Posts
1 Comment DISCLAIMER
James, I assume you've seen Wallace v. City of San Diego from not long ago dealing with just this issue. I blogged on this on February 12, more or less from the employer's perspective, although I have a hard time seeing how there could be an "employer's" and "employee's" perspective on this issue.