20 C.F.R. § 1002.236

How is the employee's rate of pay determined when he or she returns from a period of service?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The employee's rate of pay is determined by applying the same escalator principles that are used to determine the reemployment position, as follows:

(a) If the employee is reemployed in the escalator position, the employer must compensate him or her at the rate of pay associated with the escalator position. The rate of pay must be determined by taking into account any pay increases, differentials, step increases, merit increases, or periodic increases that the employee would have attained with reasonable certainty had he or she remained continuously employed during the period of service. In addition, when considering whether merit or performance increases would have been attained with reasonable certainty, an employer may examine the returning employee's own work history, his or her history of merit increases, and the work and pay history of employees in the same or similar position. For example, if the employee missed a merit pay increase while performing service, but qualified for previous merit pay increases, then the rate of pay should include the merit pay increase that was missed. If the merit pay increase that the employee missed during service is based on a skills test or examination, then the employer should give the employee a reasonable amount of time to adjust to the reemployment position and then give him or her the skills test or examination. No fixed amount of time for permitting adjustment to reemployment will be deemed reasonable in all cases. However, in determining a reasonable amount of time to permit an employee to adjust to reemployment before scheduling a makeup test or examination, an employer may take into account a variety of factors, including but not limited to the length of time the returning employee was absent from work, the level of difficulty of the test itself, the typical time necessary to prepare or study for the test, the duties and responsibilities of the reemployment position and the promotional position, and the nature and responsibilities of the service member while serving in the uniformed service. The escalator principle also applies in the event a pay reduction occurred in the reemployment position during the period of service. Any pay adjustment must be made effective as of the date it would have occurred had the employee's employment not been interrupted by uniformed service.

(b) If the employee is reemployed in the pre-service position or another position, the employer must compensate him or her at the rate of pay associated with the position in which he or she is reemployed. As with the escalator position, the rate of pay must be determined by taking into account any pay increases, differentials, step increases, merit increases, or periodic increases that the employee would have attained with reasonable certainty had he or she remained continuously employed during the period of service.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 2010–2015 · leading case: Serricchio v. Wachovia Sec. LLC, 658 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2011).
Serricchio v. Wachovia Sec. LLC, 658 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2011). “” 20 C.F.R. § 1002.236 (a) & (b). Once a violation of USERRA has been found, the statute provides that “[t]he court shall use, in any case in which the court determines it is appropriate, its full *176 equity powers, including temporary or permanent injunctions, temporary…”
Serricchio v. Wachovia Sec., LLC, 706 F. Supp. 2d 237 (D. Conn. 2010). “194 ; (iii) failed to define “rate of pay” in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 1002.236 ; and (iv) failed to distinguish between seniority and non-seniority based benefits with reference to Plaintiffs compensation, as provided for in 20 C.”
David O. Rassenfoss v. Dep't of the Treasury, 2014 MSPB 68 (MSPB 2014). · cites it 4× “20 C.F.R. § 1002.236 (a). We recognize that OPM regulations govern our adjudication of USERRA appeals of federal employees.”
Evans v. MassMutual Fin. Grp., 856 F. Supp. 2d 606 (W.D.N.Y. 2012). “” 20 C.F.R. § 1002.236 (a) & (b). As stated, defendants contend that there is no reasonable certainty that plaintiff would have become a sales manager but for his deployment, and thus they take the position that he was not entitled to a position of “like seniority, status and…”
Jeong Ko v. City of La Habra, 534 F. App'x 615 (9th Cir. 2013). “” 20 C.F.R. § 1002.236 (a) (emphasis added).”
David O. Rassenfoss v. Dep't of the Treasury, 2014 MSPB 68 (MSPB 2014). · cites it 4× “20 C.F.R. § 1002.236 (a). We recognize that OPM regulations govern our adjudication of USERRA appeals of federal employees.”
Jeong Ko v. City of La Habra, 637 F. App'x 973 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 4× “” 20 C.F.R. § 1002.236 (a).1 In reaching this conclusion, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the City, the nonmoving party.”
Carl D. Hayden v. Dep't of the Air Force (MSPB 2014). · cites it 2× “512 , ¶ 13; see also 20 C.F.R. § 1002.236 (a). DOL directs employers to adopt a case-by-case approach to determine whether a benefit was reasonably certain to have accrued absent the employee’s military service.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.