Bus 510 Business Employment Law - Petty V. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County

Shawn Tillman

BUS510 Business Employment Law

Petty v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County

Strayer University

Dr. Zelphia Brown

February 12, 2012

Petty v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County

The Uniformed Services Employment and ReEmployment Rights Act or USERRA, this act states that employers of any size are prohibited from discriminating against people who are members of, apply to become members of, or have obligations to serve in a uniformed military service. (Walsh, 2010)

What this means is that to be in compliance with this law an employer will have to allow an employee in the National Guard to attend scheduled annual drill training and treating that employee as if he or she had not been absent from work. As a general rule, employees are entitled to reemployment following up to five years of cumulative absence from work for military service. In Petty v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, this is one of the allegations that were bought up against the city government of Nashville to have happened.

1. What were the legal issues in this case?

In Petty v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville Davidson County, there were two legal issues that were brought up in this particular case. The legal issues in this case were about whether the employee had been truthful about the reasons for his discharge from military. It was discovered during his military service over in Kuwait a five gallon container of homemade wine was found in his quarters. Petty admitted to some personal use of the wine and also sharing some with a female enlisted soldier, both of which were against the Military Code of Justice, and he resigned his commission and was given an honorable or general discharge. However the most important issue in this case that went before the courts, is that the Nashville Police Department

Petty v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County

violated USERRA by delaying reemployment to an employee returning from military duty. Petty alleged that metro violated his rights under USERRA by denying him prompt reemployment on the grounds he did not adhere to the departments return to work process.

2. Explain how the reemployment provisions of the USERRA were violated in this case?

The Uniform Service Employment and Reemployment Rights ACT, was enacted in great part to protect employees from employers in four distinct ways:

A. It entitles service members to reemployment after service.

B. It entitles service members to reemployment to the position which the member would have had if not for the call to military duty.

C. It prevents employers from discriminating against service members because of their service to the military.

D. It prevents from dismissing serviced members without cause within a prescribed period of time, generally one hundred