C.F.R. » Title 20 » CHAPTER IX—OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › PART 1002—REGULATIONS UNDER THE UNIFORMED SERVICES EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT OF 1994 › Subpart F—Compliance Assistance, Enforcement and Remedies

20 C.F.R. § 1002.306

Is a National Guard civilian technician considered a State or Federal employee for purposes of USERRA?

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

A National Guard civilian technician is considered a State employee for USERRA purposes, although he or she is considered a Federal employee for most other purposes.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2015–2025 · leading case: Stoglin v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 640 F. App'x 864 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stoglin v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 640 F. App'x 864 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “(alteration in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 1002.306 ). The Board stated these regulations explain that “ £[a]n action brought against a State Adjutant General, as an employer of a civilian National Guard technician, is considered an action against a State for purposes of…”
Corey D. Stoglin v. Dep't of the Air Force, 2015 MSPB 43 (MSPB 2015). “” 20 C.F.R. § 1002.306 . The Department of Labor’s regulations go on to explain that, “[a]n action brought against a State Adjutant General, as an employer of a civilian National Guard technician, is considered an action against a State for purposes of determining which court…”
McGhee v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021). “§ 4303 (4)(B); see 20 C.F.R. § 1002.306 (providing that “[a] National Guard civilian technician is considered a State employee for USERRA purposes, although he or she is considered a Federal employee for most other purposes”); see also Stoglin v.”
McGhee v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021). “§ 4303 (4)(B); see 20 C.F.R. § 1002.306 (providing that “[a] National Guard civilian technician is considered a State employee for USERRA purposes, although he or she is considered a Federal employee for most other purposes”); see also Stoglin v.”
McGhee v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2022). “§ 4303 (4)(B); see also 20 C.F.R. § 1002.306 . As such, jurisdiction over Mr.”
Rylan D Garland v. Dep't of the Army (MSPB 2025). “” 20 C.F.R. § 1002.306 . Based on the foregoing, the administrative judge correctly found that the Board lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because a National Guard technician, such as the appellant, is considered a state employee for USERRA purposes.”
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.