Posted on 11/24/2010 3:37:28 PM PST by SmithL
The U.S. Department of Justice is suing a Mountain View company for allegedly firing an Army reservist who had given notice that his unit would be deployed for more than a year.
The suit, filed Monday in federal district court, alleges Titan Laboratories Inc. violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994.
The act prohibits employers from discriminating against U.S. service members because of their military obligations. It says those who leave their civilian jobs to serve in the military must be re-employed promptly upon their return, subject to certain limitations.
According to the Department of Justice's suit, Titan improperly fired warehouse manager/warehouseman Miguel Orozco Garduño, who had worked at the company that manufactures industrial cleaning products since 2001.
On Nov. 6, 2009, Orozco told Titan he needed to attend a 45-day training session, after which his unit was to be deployed for a 400-day period, according to the suit. It didn't say where the unit was deployed.
But when Orozco showed up at Titan on Nov. 16, 2009, during a break in training to pick up his paycheck, a letter in the same envelope as the check notified him that his employment had been terminated effective Nov. 5, that his "obligations" were "keeping him from working at Titan" and that he had "many other obligations and (could not) commit to a full-time position here any longer," according to the suit.
Orozco previously had taken other breaks from his job for training and unit deployment, the suit says. From Jan. 21, 2003, until Oct. 21, 2004, for example, he attended basic training and then served in Kuwait in support of Operation Enduring Freedom as a unit supply specialist.
Orozco told the company on March 3 of this year that he had fulfilled his military duties and could work again. But Titan, which had hired a replacement warehouse manager, told Orozco his position no longer existed, the complaint alleges.
"Rather than face discrimination because of their military obligations, our service members should be honored for the sacrifices they make, and they should know they will not have to also sacrifice their jobs to serve our country," Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice's civil rights division, said in a statement.
Titan's president, Harvey Berger, called the suit "premature" and said he is still discussing the matter with justice department officials. Though he declined to discuss the case, he said the company had a "very strong position for what we did.
"When they (the Department of Justice) understand the situation I think they'll take a different position," Berger said. "We treat people right and do the right thing, and we'll clarify."
I realize it is a very popular policy for obvious reasons, but I wonder if the requirement to keep a job open for months or years could be argued to be a 3rd amendment violation (not literally quartering, but you are compelling employment decisions without compensation, in a sense saying when a soldier comes home you have to give him a job no matterwhat happens in the intervening year(s)).
flame away, just it is what comes to mind when I see the topic. for a small business, the accomodation can be a significant issue.
Though I wouldn’t like to have served with too many draftees that didn’t have the dedication to enlist....
I do long for the days when HR and management of places like this could be drafted and sent overseas.
Holder gets one right.
Click the link.
This is no small business, its a strawling conglomerate owning many patents.
And yes, it can be a problem for a small business ~ 'cause they might well have to lay someone off IF the soldier returns. Now if the soldier doesn't return you can attend the funeral.
Not to be all that nasty about it but you are not prohibited from employing a "temporary" replacement.
Given the remarkably low death rate among our troops these days I wouldn't get to know the replacement employee all that well.
Sorry Woof, you’re wrong here. An employer has the option of hiring a temporary person during the time of an employee’s deployment, a set period of time.
The law is the law but I wonder if it was drafted with the idea in mind that it would be SOP for the NG to function as active duty Army brigades for a year every few years.
I served with draftees in the Marines in Vietnam. All seemed dedicated and were doing their duty to their country. Most Marines never talked about how they got there. And speaking of dedication, I enlisted because I was unskilled and needed a job, not because I was patriotic..
please provide a list of the products this so-called american company produces. I need to know what not to buy, ever again...
bfl
I understand what you are saying but in this guys case, he was replaced by another person following his deployment and was denied re-employment to his position following his return home.
"When they (the Department of Justice) understand the situation I think they'll take a different position,"
That ain't gonna happen! The law is specific and is intended to protect the soldier regardless of the so called company "situation"
This HR manager should be fired for ignorance.........
Back around 1979 when our company required a massive layoff of several hundred employees, one guy enlisted in the Army while on layoff status. Four years later after he was then discharged, he returned to our company seeking re-employment. During his service, the department he had been working in, that division was sold off so there was no work for him to return to and we had to deny him his job. He took his case to the VA and they in turn filed suit and we were forced to rehire the guy in another dept. in accordance with his seniority.
The guy was a knucklehead and problem employee before he got laid off and he obviously didn't gain any maturity while in the military since he eventually got fired within the following year after he was rehired.
The bottom line is, the VA WILL go out of their way to insure the rights of their military personnel are respected by their prior employers and for that they should be commended.........
No employer should be allowed to deny re-employment to any employee who leaves the company to serve in the U.S. Military regardless of the "situation"........
It is precisely why the law was enacted...Nice try!
“Sorry Woof, you’re wrong here. An employer has the option of hiring a temporary person during the time of an employee’s deployment, a set period of time.”
Meaning you cannot hire a permanent person, meaning you may have trouble filling a slot vs. if it were permanent if you are a small business and the position in question is skilled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.