Skip to main content

Third Circuit Finds Employees Entitled to Paid Leave Under USERRA

 

Travers v. Federal Express Corporation - Third Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Gerard Travers (“Travers”), who worked for Federal Express Corporation (“FedEx”), served in the U.S. Navy and Reserves.  During his tenure at FedEx, Travers completed his Reserve duties during leave from work.  Although FedEx provides employees with paid leave for time spent at jury duty, for illness, and bereavement, paid leave is not offered for military leave.

Travers filed suit against FedEx on the grounds that the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”) entitled him to paid leave for military duty.  FedEx countered on the grounds that since it did not provide paid leave for military duty to any employee, it had not treated service members any differently than the rest of its employees.  The District Court dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that USERRA did not provide for paid leave for military duty as paid leave was not a “right and benefit” under USERRA.  Travers subsequently appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Holding:  A three judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals began its analysis with a look at the language and history of USERRA.  As the Court noted, “…USERRA does not allow employers to treat service members differently by paying employees for some kinds of leave while exempting military service…”  In fact, the Court recognized that USERRA applies to benefits generally provided by an employers, such as paid leave…regardless of distinctions between the type of paid leave (such as sick leave or bereavement leave or military leave.)  Of note, Judge Matey emphasized that “since employers cannot ‘provide’ military leave, paid or otherwise, to non-military employees, there is no way to deny the benefit in a neutral way.”

Consequently, the Court recognized that as USERRA had a “long history of protecting the jobs and accompanying benefits of Americas called to protect our common defense”, there was sufficient justification to remand the case back to District Court.

Judgment:  The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that based upon the language of history of USERRA, a reasonable interpretation of the statute could be found that paid leave is a “right and benefit” to be provided for employees for military leave (including Reserve duty.)

The Takeaway:  Note, this decision is in harmony with a ruling from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, White v. United Airlines Inc., in which that Court refused to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a pilot (who was a reservist) that sought paid military leave under similar circumstance as this case.  Something tells me that this will not be the last we hear of a case with a similar set of facts pending in another circuit. Stay tuned.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Circuit Judge Matey

Date:  August 10, 2021

Opinion:  https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/202703p.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

Happening Tomorrow: Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increases

For those employers and employees alike in Connecticut, mark your calendars as tomorrow, the minimum wage rate increases in the state from $13/hour to $14/hour. This wage hike comes after Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont had signed Public Act 19-4 into law in 2019 which progressively raised the state’s hourly minimum wage rate every year for five years.  In fact, next year, the hourly wage rate will top out at $15/hour.  Beginning in January of 2024, the hourly wage rate will be indexed to the employment cost index. For additional information:   https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/06-2022/Governor-Lamont-Reminds-Residents-That-Minimum-Wage-Is-Scheduled-To-Increase-on-Friday
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more