MENU

Tag: statute of limitations

To Serve and Protect: Discrimination Against Veterans In Employment is Prohibited

May 21, 2018

On the last Monday in May, Americans celebrate Memorial Day to commemorate all the men and women who have died in military service to the US. But what about those who return from a military tour… and join, or re-join, the workforce. The federal government through Congress enacted the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”), 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301–4335, for this class of individuals to protect their right to work and to return to work.

USERRA prohibits discrimination against employees and potential employees based on their military service. It also imposes obligations on employers with respect to employees returning to work after a military tour of duty. The most unique characteristics of USERRA make it very different from other employment laws and civil rights law. Consider the following:   

  1. No Employer Bias: courts universally construe USERRA in favor of veterans, on the other hand, many with experience in the field will agree that most courts, especially the 11th Circuit and those within its jurisdiction (Georgia included) generally construe other employment related laws in favor of the employer.
  2. No Statute Of Limitations: USERRA has no statute of limitations for claims that accrued after October 10, 2008 and, in some cases, October 10, 2004. Other employment-related statutes have strict deadlines during which a claim must be brought such as Title VII and the ADA – one-hundred and eighty (180) days, the EPA – two (2) years, etc.
  3. No Minimum Employer Size: USERRA applies to all public and private employers, irrespective of size whereas laws like Title VII require a minimum of 15 employees, the ADEA requires 20, FMLA requires at least 75 employees within a geographic location
  4. No Termination Without Cause: USERRA creates a “for cause” termination standard for employees who return to work after one month or more of military service.  If an employee’s service was between thirty (30) and one-hundred and eighty (180) days, he or she may not be terminated without cause for up to six (6) months following his or her return to work.  And employees returning from more than one-hundred and eighty (180) days of service are afforded this protection from termination for a full year.  This is most relevant to states like Georgia where employees are terminable “at will” meaning that no cause for termination is required.

Note that in addition to USERRA, veterans may be protected under other employment statutes. For instance, an injury sustained during a military tour might make that individual a person with a disability and entitled to protections under the ADA. 

Happy Memorial Day!

Newest on Whistleblower Protection

March 9, 2017


 

Plaintiffs seeking protection under the anti-retaliation provisions of the Georgia Whistleblowers Act (“GWA”) will applaud the Georgia Court of Appeals’ recent decision in West v City of Albany wherein it removed a fatal procedural obstacle. 

In this case, Ms. West claimed damages, attorney fees and litigation costs against the City for its decision to terminate her employment when she reported what was deemed to be financial irregularities in the City’s utility department. The City responded with a motion of dismiss the claim due to West’s failure to provide pre-litigation notice (known in latin as “ante litem notice”) six (6) months prior to filing her claim in Court and after the discovery of the adverse employment decision, as is required by the municipal ante litem notice statute. The Court reviewed the specific text of the GWA and concluded mainly that retaliation under the GWA is defined as an intentional act while the municipal ante litem notice statute specifically pertains to negligent acts; therefore, the six (6) month notice period does NOT apply to claims made pursuant to the GWA. 

The GWA is a powerful statute in that it creates a wrongful termination cause of action, even in the employment “at-will” state of Georgia, it waives sovereign immunity for municipalities such as the City in this case and, as the Court concluded: it establises a statute of limitations of up to three (3) years for a negligence claim that would otherwise provide only one (1) year. The Court would not have these powers truncated by ante litem requirements.

This decision, issued on March 6, 2017, highlights once again the importance of timely claims. If you have a legal issue, it probably has timeliness considerations in tow; therefore, speak to legal counsel sooner rather than later in order to preserve your rights!

S.O.