Posted on Jun 26, 2016
Legal loophole allows companies to fire military reservists who go to war
67K
36
9
24
24
0
This could be a terrible precedence for our reservists, should the company win this legal battle.

Legal loophole allows companies to fire military reservists who go to war
Posted from militarytimes.comPosted in these groups:
Navy Reserve
Coast Guard Reserve
Marine Corps Reserve
Air Force Reserve
Army Reserve Elements





Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
Posted >1 y ago
LTC Jason Strickland he hit snake eyes with the 9 Circus of Appeals. I would think that the employer would have to provide a paper trail of poor performance to justify the dismissal. Just stating his performance was dropping is not enough. I have luckily always been employed with state jobs that offer protections on top of all USERRA Law. My experience has always been positive leaving for deployments, regarding my civilian employment. State government jobs would not like the bad publicity of mishandling deployed service members as well. It still happens regarding civilian promotion, but is more difficult to prove. I had a friend who would always put his Reserve status and experience on his resume, and never get any calls for interviews. When he scrubbed his resume of all military, he instantly got multiple calls. It's not right, but still exists.
(4)
Comment
(0)
Posted >1 y ago
Greedy and unpatriotic people poking America's warriors in the eye again. Get rid of the loopholes!
(4)
Comment
(0)
Posted 2 mo ago
Having been an ESGR Ombudsman working USERRA cases, there are some unclear aspects to this case that need to be clarified.
This doesn't fit a good definition of a legal loophole.
"Forced to sign"; not a good sign. He never should have signed such a document.
What reason was given by HR for the firing? The timing of the action is questionable.
This doesn't fit a good definition of a legal loophole.
"Forced to sign"; not a good sign. He never should have signed such a document.
What reason was given by HR for the firing? The timing of the action is questionable.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Read This Next