Answer questions:
1. What were the legal issues in this case?
2. Explain how the reemployment provisions of the USERRA were violated in this case.
3. Explain why the court concludes that Petty has a claim for discrimination under USERRA.
4. Explain what the police department should have done differently.
Hrpetty V. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County
Petty v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County
Strayer University
Professor Jama Rand, PhD, SP
HRM510 Business Employment Law
August 7, 2011
What was the legal issue in this case?
In Petty v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County, the legal issue was about whether the employee had been truthful about the reasons for his discharge from service. Another issue in the case was in regards to the postponement in re-employing a returning Army reservist, which violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), although the delay was based on the employee’s alleged dishonesty (Walsh, 2010). The US government has taken numerous steps to ensure that the employers to not discriminate when hiring, promoting or firing employees. According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) employers cannot discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Metro re-hired Petty but did not return him to his previous position of patrol sergeant or a substantially similar position. Petty was relegated to answering phone calls and occasionally taking police reports (Walsh, 2010). Metro’s Office of Professional Accountability conducted an investigation into whether Petty lied on his return-to-work paperwork by admitting that he faced military charges in Kuwait, but did not disclose that he was accused of giving alcohol to an enlisted soldier and of manufacturing alcohol. This investigation was closed after a lieutenant met with Petty and concluded that any allegation that Petty was untruthful on his paperwork was unfounded (Walsh, 2010).
Explain how the reemployment provisions of the USERRA were violated in this case.
The central dispute in this case is whether Metro violated USERRA in its treatment of Petty, a former police officer who left the department for active duty with the United States Army and who sought reemployment with the department after completion of his military service (Walsh, 2010).
For the purposes of this case, USERRA performs four key functions. First, it guarantees returning veterans a right of reemployment after military service. Second, it prescribes the position to which such veterans are entitled upon their return. Third, it prevents employers from discriminating against returning veterans on account of their military service. Fourth, it prevents employers from firing without cause any returning veterans within one year of reemployment (Walsh, 2010).
Explain why the court concludes that Petty has a claim for discrimination under USERRA.
The court concludes that Petty has a claim for discrimination under USERRA because he had satisfied the stipulations for reinstatement—his petition for re-employment was timely, and his discharge was “honorable”. In his USERRA lawsuit, Petty alleged that the department unlawfully delayed his reemployment and failed to restore him to his patrol sergeant’s position, thereby discriminating against him by virtue of his military service. The department argued that it was merely adhering to uniform fitness for duty procedures promulgated by Nashville and the surrounding county (Walsh, 2010).
However, Metro did not conform with the act’s requirement to quickly reinstate Petty to his former position. When Metro raised Petty’s alleged dishonesty as a defense, the appeals court responded by reminding Metro that USERRA allows an employer to terminate a former serviceman for “cause” after re-employment, but does not allow an employer to use that same “cause” as an excuse not to reinstate the individual at all. In compliance with Metro’s return-to-work process, Petty signed an authorization granting metro unfettered access to his entire medical and military records include a complete DD-214 (Walsh, 2010).
Explain what the police department should have done differently.
I feel like the police department should had put Petty back in his last job duties. In the case of a person who is not qualified to be employed in the position of employment in which Petty would have been employed if the continuous employment should had not been interrupted by such service. I feel that if a person has serviced our country for our freedom then they should be able to find a legit job and make a care. It should matter as long as the applicant can do the job and speak well than this will help our more.
In conclusion, job discrimination has been a poison polluting the atmosphere of the workforce for a countless number of decades. Unfortunately, it is a poison that still lingers in today’s modern workforce. To combat this threat, and to aid those individuals affected, several Federal laws have been implemented to prohibit job discrimination.
References
Walsh, D. J. (2010). Employment law for human resource practice: 2010 custom edition (3rd ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning
Field A Jr, Winfrey W. Job displacement and reemployment in North Carolina: the relative experience of the black worker. Rev Black Political Economy. 1997;25:57–73.[pic]
