Assignment #3 Petty v. Metropolitan Govt of Nashville & Davidson County - Research Paper Example

Management Number The Legal Issues in This Case In Petty v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, the issue is about if an employee is truthful about the reasons for his discharge from duties or service. The case also touched on the postponement in re-employing a returning Army reservist who had violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act (USERRA), even if the delay emanates from the employee’s dishonesty. All these happen in light of the fact that the US has taken several steps to ensure that employers do not discriminate against employees, when hiring, firing or promoting. 2. Explaining How the Reemployment Provisions of the USERRA Were Violated In This Case As is specified by Mollica (2008), at the heart of this, the principal dispute in this case is whether or not Metro had violated USERRA, in its handling or treatment of Petty.

Petty had left the department for active duty with the United States Army and sought redeployment with the department after the completion of his military service. There are four key functions that USERRA performs. These include: the guaranteeing returning veterans the right of re-employment after military service; preventing employers from discriminating against returning veterans, in relation to their military service; prescribing the position to which army veterans are entitled upon their return; and preventing employers from firing returning veterans arbitrarily, within a year of reemployment.

In light of the four functions, it is right to state that USERRA exists to consolidate the rights of returning veterans who are seeking reemployment upon return from service. However, even in light of the foregoing, Metro delayed re-hiring Petty by subjecting her through the entire return-to-work process. Secondly, Metro violated the reemployment provisions of USERRA by not according Petty the position he had been qualified for. 3. Explaining Why the Court Concludes That Petty Has a Claim for Discrimination under USERRA The Court made a conclusion that Petty’s claim for discrimination under USERRA was legitimate and founded on truth because he had satisfied all the stipulations for the reinstatement.

Again, the court continued that Petty’s petition for reemployment was made in a timely manner, and his discharge done honorably. In the USERRA lawsuit, Petty had cogently argued that the department had unlawfully delayed his reemployment and declined to restore him [Petty] to his patrol sergeant’s position. This was discriminatory against Petty, by virtue of his military service record. The argument by the department that it was merely observing uniform fitness for duty procedures which Nashville and the surrounding county did not suffice in the court.

Metro never conformed with the act’s requirement to immediately or quickly reinstate Petty to his former position. When Metro raised alleged dishonesty by Petty as a defense, the US Court of Appeal responded to Metro, by reminding Metro that USERRA allows any employer to terminate former servicemen for cause after redeployment. The Court of Appeal also reminded Metro that USERRA also does not allow any employer to use the same cause as a reason for totally not reinstating the individual. At the same time, as a way of complying with the Metro’s return-to-work process, Petty had signed an authorization that granted Metro unlimited access to his entire military and medical records which included, a complete DD-214. 4. Explaining What the Police Department Should Have Done Differently It is a fact that the Police Department should have averted the aforementioned crisis by doing things in a better way.

Particularly, the Police Department should have adhered by the dictates of USERRA to reemploy or reinstate Petty back to the office he had previously held. Petty had fulfilled all the felicity conditions that are needed for his reinstatement or reemployment. For instance, Petty had served the military and signed an authorization which granted Metro unfettered access to his entire military and medical records which included a complete DD-214. There was no factor indicating that Petty was unable to ably discharge the duties, roles and responsibilities pertinent to the office or job he had applied for.

References Mollica, P. (2008). Petty v. Metro. Govt. of Nashville-Davidson County, No. 07-5649 (6th Cir. Aug. 18, 2008); Abner v. The Kansas City Southern Railway Co., No. 07-30674 (5th Cir. Aug. 14, 2008). Outten & Golden: Daily Developments in EEO Law. Retrieved on February 11, 2014, from: http://www.employmentlawblog.info/2008/08/petty-v-metro-govt-of-nashville-davidson-county-no-07-5649-6th-cir-aug-18-2008-abner-v-the-kansas-ci.shtml