"Air Force officer: State bosses told me to ‘quit playing soldier’"

RallyPoint Shared Content — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 12:18:47 -0400

From: NY Post
--
A hero US pilot claims his bosses at the New Jersey Turnpike Authority have harassed him for years because they want him to “quit playing soldier” in the Reserves.

Col. Jack O’Connell, 50, who was wounded in Baghdad and flew 30 combat missions during Operation Desert Storm, says the agency denied him leave to attend military training in Nebraska last month, and he fears he’ll be fired.

He is already suing the Authority, alleging it blocked his promotions and raises for years because of his five active-duty tours in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay.
“When you’re in the military you have an obligation,” O’Connell told The Post. “I get an order, and I go.”

O’Connell, of South Amboy, NJ, began his military career flying Navy F-14 fighter jets off aircraft carriers during the First Gulf War in 1991. He was decorated for valor after flying dozens of strike missions in and around Baghdad.

O’Connell left active duty in 1993 and earned a law degree at Seton Hall. After the Sept. 11 attacks, the newly minted attorney joined the Air National Guard.
“When 9/11 happened, I felt an obligation,” he said. “They wouldn’t let me fly anymore and asked me to be a judge advocate.”

O’Connell was hired by the Turnpike Authority in August 2002 as in-house counsel in its Woodbridge headquarters.

He had to leave his job five times to serve his nation, once to oversee legal operations at Guantanamo Bay in 2004-2005. He also worked as legal adviser to Gens. George Casey and David Petraeus in Iraq. His first tour of duty lasted 14 months. He missed nearly six years at his civilian job in total because of the deployments scattered over 13 years.

In 2007, he was wounded in Iraq while running for cover during a rocket attack.
But despite his heroic military duty, O’Connell says he was badgered and bullied whenever he returned to his civilian job at the Turnpike Authority. The colonel claims in his suit his belongings were boxed and shipped out while he was on duty overseas and his work e-mails were hacked.

Bosses demanded to see copies of his military orders and were suspicious of his long absences, with one of them asking, “How do we know he was in Baghdad and not on a beach in Key West?” court papers say.

During conversations with two high-ranking bosses about a promotion opportunity, he was told, “I’d like to move you up, but you need to quit playing soldier,” the suit says.

Reservists’ jobs are protected by state and federal rules. If they are called up for duty, employers are required by law to pay them for 90 days of active duty per calendar year.

They are also obligated to protect reservists’ jobs even if their tours of duty run up to five years, and time spent in combat zones is not counted against that threshold, said Richard Galex, a lawyer representing O’Connell.

“His claims of harassment were thoroughly scrutinized by the district court and were found to have no merit,” said Thomas Bigosinski, an Authority lawyer.
O’Connell said his employer does not recognize the sacrifice he and fellow soldiers are making for their nation.

“Four-star generals have said to me that we cannot do our mission without the reserves,” he said. “If it’s not us doing it, then who does it?”

http://nypost.com/2015/07/05/air-force-officer-state-bosses-told-me-to-quit-playing-soldier/

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 12:24 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 12:24:20 -0400

I hope that the Col has all these denials on paper, that way when court time comes, he has more than just "he said, she said" to prove this. Of course the Authority lawyer denies all accusations, I mean, that is what he is supposed to do. I am interested in the outcome of this, as most reserve/guard members should be.

Response by Lt Col Timothy Parker, DBA made Jul 6 at 2015 12:25 PM

Lt Col Timothy Parker, DBA — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 12:25:32 -0400

I thought the civilian employers had an obligation to support the reserve component under the Sailors and Soldiers Act - at least to hold their job during a deployment. If this is not the case, then the negative publicity will get their attention. It just seems like the right thing to do when someone wants to fight for their country. Employers like this just baffle me.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jul 6 at 2015 12:28 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 12:28:00 -0400

If we are still fighting these types of battles in this day and age then employers just don't want to get it and that's just as sad as it is wrong. Next thing (and I'll bet its been done for years) they'll be using being in the Guard or Reserves as a determining factor in hiring - of course they'll make it difficult as hell to prove like salary and age discrimination - but they'll get away with it.

Response by MSgt C Madd made Jul 6 at 2015 12:39 PM

MSgt C Madd — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 12:39:20 -0400

USERRA Law is very clear regarding these type of civilian employment problems. Written orders are not mandatory, verbal notification is all you need to do. However, private or even state employers can still create a very unfriendly environment for service members. You are eligible for all pay raises and promotions, but you are not guaranteed promotion under USERRA Law. Reality is most employers will say to the public they love their service members, but truthfully hate it when you are gone.

Response by SPC Chris Early made Jul 6 at 2015 1:30 PM

SPC Chris Early — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 13:30:46 -0400

civilian employers have no clue and most dont care, only reason they act like they care is because the are scared of the unknown Consequences of firing service members who are reserves or guard

Response by TSgt Gwen Walcott made Jul 6 at 2015 2:33 PM

TSgt Gwen Walcott — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 14:33:38 -0400

Make sure that Christi's office is officially aware of this --- even if it's ignored

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 4:00 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 16:00:11 -0400

Lovely. If true, they will certainly change their tune if there is enough public pressure. Sad that it takes that type of action to level the playing field. There are folk whom are equal opportunity discriminators....they do not like having to "handle" anything unique that causes them more supervisory work--military, women, pregnant women, gays, etc...not any of us, correct?

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 4:06 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 16:06:26 -0400

Sadly, this is a real thing. I have dealt with it at my job, too. My raises have suffered, and upward mobility is stagnant because they are all expecting me to leave sometime. Other's have dealt with this too. Too bad we can't do a class action.

Response by CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 4:11 PM

CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 16:11:05 -0400

I've known private sector companies, law enforcement & EMS agencies, and a lot of civil service offices who are hurt by their guard and reserve members being gone. Most, if not all, do seem to support when their employees are involuntarily activated for a deployment, but when they volunteer time after time for non-deployment reasons other than they get paid more than their civilian jobs; how can civilian employers compete with that? They can't!

In the private sector I was a security director when the economy was in the pits. 2 of my employees were reserve and national guard. They volunteered for everything all the time, because they were making more than the company they worked for could offer. When they made $17 an hour, but could go off making E-4 and E-6 pay with BAH/BAS, plus more retirement points, why not go?

Meanwhile we were strapped thin and for months at a time no one could have holidays off, call in sick, take vacation, etc.. Neither of them ever deployed; they just took orders at their units or in the case of the E-6, he volunteered for 3 months to support the inauguration as a "staff driver".

The police agency I worked for was in the same boat, too. Even I contributed to that situation as a member of the Guard. I was an E-6 and was asked to do six weeks of orders to augment base security during a gate upgrade project. I volunteered, naturally, and why not? I made $40K as a cop and a lot more than that as an ANG cop, plus the work was 10x easier.

So yeah, I've been on both sides and can see where a company, especially a private sector for-profit company, would consider putting stricter policies out there concerning guard/reserves. Again, most do not argue, nor do they fail to support, the war effort, i.e. supporting Mr. Tentpeg in the Acme Inc. IT office to head off to Afghanistan to do his part for the greater good for 9 months, but it's different when Mrs. Sandbag is gone for a month here, 2 weeks there, an extended weekend here, and then 4 months there; for random opportunities to get orders. And even more painful for an organization who has 24/7 operations like EMS/LE or even the on-call types of jobs.

Compared to many jobs in the private sector, and even at the local or state government level (teachers come to mind), it can be a real challenge for employers to have their people serving in the guard/reserves when the pay and benefits are better than what the employers can offer.

Response by SFC Joseph Bosley made Jul 6 at 2015 5:06 PM

SFC Joseph Bosley — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 17:06:23 -0400

This is very unfortunate for this person. Although it is illegal to block promotions or fire you for "playing soldier" (i cant remember the exact federal act here but it does exist), there are many instances where service members are let go or harassed in many ways because of their service obligations. Unfortunately many employers just don't care about this and are willing to roll the dice with prosecution. If you can afford to fight it in the courts then what kind of atmosphere are you walking back into when you go back to work. Overall no matter how this plays out its a bad situation.

Response by SSG Brian Kresge made Jul 6 at 2015 8:53 PM

SSG Brian Kresge — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 20:53:43 -0400

We had a Central Pennsylvania judge excoriated by the York Daily Record editorial board for being both a member of the National Guard and a sitting judge!

GWOTs over, civilians are putting their a-hole hats back on, I suppose, though I will say, my employers throughout the last decade in the Guard, especially, have all been absolutely super.

Response by COL Jeff Williams made Jul 7 at 2015 2:45 AM

COL Jeff Williams — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 02:45:37 -0400

Not sure why the employer had to demand to see copies of his orders, he is obliged to give them a copy. I am sure there is a bit more to the story but then again consider who he is dealing with

Response by CPT James Hubbard made Jul 7 at 2015 11:09 AM

CPT James Hubbard — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 11:09:25 -0400

He should get in contact with the USDOL Veterans Employment and Training Service in New Jersey for assistance. What the state is doing is blatantly illegal. That representative can be found at http://www.dol.gov/vets. The representative and his employees are trained to defend folks like this against illegal acts by employers.

Response by CPT James Hubbard made Jul 7 at 2015 11:14 AM

CPT James Hubbard — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 11:14:10 -0400

Here is a link to the law and filing a claim. http://www.dol.gov/vets/programs/userra/index.htm

U.S. Department of Labor -- Veterans' Employment and TrainingService (VETS) -- Uniformed Services...

VETS provides assistance to those persons experiencing service connected problems with their civilian employment and provides information about USERRA to employers. VETS also assists veterans who have questions regarding Veterans' Preference.

Response by MAJ Haris Balcinovic made Jul 7 at 2015 11:21 AM

MAJ Haris Balcinovic — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 11:21:42 -0400

The sad part is that the biggest offenders of The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) are usually local, state or federal government agencies and employers. At least from what I have seen, experienced, or heard from friends in the Reserves. I have to say that I have been blessed with my job, having deployed twice and being gone on training numerous times - they even provide a month worth of paid military leave. So there are employers that are understanding, as well as patriotic. But the sad part is there is a rising number of employers who are finding loopholes in the law. Best bet is to always contact ESGR or Department of Labor

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 3:11 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 15:11:53 -0400

https://casetext.com/case/oconnell-v-nj-tpk-auth
Knowing how news agencies can be selective in their reporting, I looked up the case documentation and read over it. Respectful to Colonel O'Connell's rank and service, I really don't see a clear cut case of discrimination. Some inter-office ribbing about service obligations, but I put up with that fairly regularly from my co-workers. Again, with respect, I think this story is a attempt to win a battle in public opinion that was lost in the judicial system, and rightfully so.

Casetext

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Mar 4 at 2021 8:57 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Thu, 04 Mar 2021 08:57:37 -0500

Equating being in the Air Force Reserve to playing "Soldier" is deeply offensive to actual Soldiers...

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 4 at 2021 9:36 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Mar 2021 09:36:51 -0500

I have a lot of sympathy for private employers that have to deal with staff being activated by the guard and reserve. I have no sympathy for government agencies.

Though I think it's unrealistic for reservists to expect years away from their Civilian job to not have a negative effect on their Civilian career.

Response by SFC Casey O'Mally made Mar 4 at 2021 12:43 PM

SFC Casey O'Mally — Thu, 04 Mar 2021 12:43:56 -0500

He has spent nearly 6 out of 13 years away from his job. I understand why. I am not arguing with him being allowed to go, or with him going. But...

If you are employed in ANY job, and then you spend almost half of your time out doing something else, why would you ever expect to get promoted? You have demonstrated to your employer that you cannot be counted on regularly. Why should that be considered for a position of higher responsibility (and, most likely, less ability to cover your absence).

If we are talking about missing a year or two, maybe. Especially if it is a year or two over ten. But 6 out of 13? And you expect promotion? At this point, he isn't "playing Soldier," he has legitimate split interests. He is not a "one weekend a month, two weeks a year" Airman - he isn't even a "only when needed to fill gaps that the regular Air Force can't fill" Airman. He should just be considered permanently on call.