Petty vs. Metropolitan Govt. of Nashville and Davidson County
Petty vs. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County
Assignment 3
Dr. Eddy
HRM
Angel Mack
August 12, 2011
1. What were the legal issues in this case?
After carefully reading the Petty v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County case; I found several legal issues. The first legal issue was violation of USERRA. USERRA is known as Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. In USERRA, an employer large or small is prohibited to delay/postpone the reemployment of a soldier returning from the service. Petty later found out that his employment was delayed due to him being dishonest to Metro. The second legal issue was because of Petty being allegedly being dishonest to Metro why he was discharged from the service.
2. Explain how the re-employment provisions of the USERRA were violated in this case.
The provisions of USERRA were created to be in place to protect the rights of all returning veterans when seeking re-employment once returning from the service. (Judicial Review, 2008). Re-employment must occur within two weeks of the employee’s application. The re-employment provisions of USERRA were violated because Metro delayed re-hiring for Petty by putting him through the return-to-work process. Metro’s return to work process took Petty three weeks to be rehired. Petty alleged that Metro completely violated his rights under USERRA in several ways. First, Metro delayed rehiring him due to the department return to work process. Second, Metro did not properly place him in the position where he was entitled. Thirdly, Metro denied him the ability to successfully work off duty security jobs.
3. Explain why the court concludes that Petty has a claim for discrimination under USERRA.
USERRA is in place to protect all military personnel upon returning to work after serving their country. According to USERRA; first it guarantees all returning military personnel the right of reemployment once they
Assignment 3
Dr. Eddy
HRM
Angel Mack
August 12, 2011
1. What were the legal issues in this case?
After carefully reading the Petty v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County case; I found several legal issues. The first legal issue was violation of USERRA. USERRA is known as Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. In USERRA, an employer large or small is prohibited to delay/postpone the reemployment of a soldier returning from the service. Petty later found out that his employment was delayed due to him being dishonest to Metro. The second legal issue was because of Petty being allegedly being dishonest to Metro why he was discharged from the service.
2. Explain how the re-employment provisions of the USERRA were violated in this case.
The provisions of USERRA were created to be in place to protect the rights of all returning veterans when seeking re-employment once returning from the service. (Judicial Review, 2008). Re-employment must occur within two weeks of the employee’s application. The re-employment provisions of USERRA were violated because Metro delayed re-hiring for Petty by putting him through the return-to-work process. Metro’s return to work process took Petty three weeks to be rehired. Petty alleged that Metro completely violated his rights under USERRA in several ways. First, Metro delayed rehiring him due to the department return to work process. Second, Metro did not properly place him in the position where he was entitled. Thirdly, Metro denied him the ability to successfully work off duty security jobs.
3. Explain why the court concludes that Petty has a claim for discrimination under USERRA.
USERRA is in place to protect all military personnel upon returning to work after serving their country. According to USERRA; first it guarantees all returning military personnel the right of reemployment once they
References: Walsh, D. J. (2010). Employment law for human resource practice: 2010 custom edition (3rd ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning Caselaw.findlaw.on/us-6th-circuit/1607056.html www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0302p-06.pdf