20 C.F.R. § 1002.248
What constitutes cause for discharge under USERRA?
The employee may be discharged for cause based either on conduct or, in some circumstances, because of the application of other legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons.
(a) In a discharge action based on conduct, the employer bears the burden of proving that it is reasonable to discharge the employee for the conduct in question, and that he or she had notice, which was express or can be fairly implied, that the conduct would constitute cause for discharge.
(b) If, based on the application of other legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons, the employee's job position is eliminated, or the employee is placed on layoff status, either of these situations would constitute cause for purposes of USERRA. The employer bears the burden of proving that the employee's job would have been eliminated or that he or she would have been laid off.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2022 · leading case: Cheryl P. Francis v. Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc., Reserve Officers Ass'n, Amicus Supporting, 452 F.3d 299 (4th Cir. 2006).
Cheryl P. Francis v. Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc., Reserve Officers Ass'n, Amicus Supporting, 452 F.3d 299 (4th Cir. 2006). “” 20 C.F.R. § 1002.248 (a) (2006). Because employers have the burden of proving that the discharge was reasonable, it is difficult for employers to achieve summary judgment on claims under § 4316(c).”
Vahey v. Gen. Motors Co., 985 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2013). “20 C.F.R. § 1002.248 . In such a case, “[t]he employer bears the burden of proving that the employee’s job would have been eliminated or that he or she would have been laid off.”
Rademacher v. HBE Corp., 645 F.3d 1005 (8th Cir. 2011). “Under that authority, the Department of Labor has issued a regulation entitled, “What constitutes cause for discharge under USERRA?” 20 C.F.R. § 1002.248 . The regulation provides: The employee may be discharged for cause based either on conduct or, in some circumstances,…”
To v. U.S. Bancorp, 651 F.3d 888 (8th Cir. 2011). “20 C.F.R. § 1002.248 (a). In order to prove the “cause” needed to discharge an employee covered by USERRA based on that employee’s conduct, an employer must show: (1) that the employer’s decision was reasonable, and (2) that the employee had notice that such conduct would be a…”
Starr v. Quicktrip Corp., 655 F. App'x 642 (10th Cir. 2016). “20 C.F.R. § 1002.248 (a). Starr claims QuikTrip’s submissions failed to show he had notice he would be fired for violating the written two-hour policy.”
Hanson v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 21 F. Supp. 3d 1124 (W.D. Wash. 2014). “” 20 C.F.R. § 1002.248 . Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to summary judgment against Defendants because they are liable for violating § 4316(c) when they failed to give him any investigative work after April 2013.”
Mace v. Willis, 259 F. Supp. 3d 1007 (D.S.D. 2017). “If the military person who leaves employment to engage in military service knowingly provides written notice to their employer that they do not intend to return to their position of employment, the benefits of USERRA do not apply.”
Johnson v. Michigan Claim Serv., Inc., 471 F. Supp. 2d 967 (D. Minnesota 2007). “The ultimate issue is whether MCS’s discharge of Johnson for refusing to sign the agreement was reasonable under § 4316(c) (an issue on which MCS bears the burden of proof, see 20 C.F.R. § 1002.248 (a) 2 ). If the agreement would have been unenforceable, then it can be assumed…”
Starr v. Quiktrip Corp. (10th Cir. 2018). “See 20 C.F.R. § 1002.248 (a). The jury found that QuikTrip satisfied both requirements and the district court entered judgment in its favor.”
McSwain v. World Fuel Servs. Corp. (S.D. Fla. 2022). “” 20 C.F.R. § 1002.248 (b). 5 Although Plaintiff labeled Count IV as a claim under 38 U.”
Achterberg v. Albaugh, LLC (W.D. Mo. 2017). ““In a discharge action based on conduct, the employer bears the burden of proving:” (1) discharge was reasonable for the conduct in question; and (2) the employee had notice, express or implied, that the “conduct would constitute cause for discharge.”
Lawrence J. Marino & Mary Ann v. Akal Sec. Inc., 377 F. App'x 683 (9th Cir. 2010). “1 See 20 CFR § 1002.248 (b) (an employer may show cause by establishing that an independent, non-discriminatory reason caused an employee’s position to be eliminated).”
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.