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 C—Eligibility For Reemployment

20 C.F.R. § 1002.33

Does the employee have to prove that the employer discriminated against him or her in order to be eligible for reemployment?

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

No. The employee is not required to prove that the employer discriminated against him or her because of the employee's uniformed service in order to be eligible for reemployment.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: Joel Bradberry v. Jefferson Cnty., Texas, 732 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Joel Bradberry v. Jefferson Cnty., Texas, 732 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “” 20 C.F.R. § 1002.33 . Whether reemployment rights exist may not be determinable on the first day a Reservist returns to work.”
Petty v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville-Davidson Cnty., 538 F.3d 431 (6th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “” 20 C.F.R. § 1002.33 ; accord Francis, 452 F.”
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. § 1002.33 (2006). We consider Francis’ claims under both provisions.”
Keslosky v. Borough of Old Forge, 66 F. Supp. 3d 592 (M.D. Penn. 2014). · cites it 2× “Therefore, despite Old Forge’s contention that Plaintiff has -failed to establish that his membership or participation in the Uniformed Services was the substantial or motivating factor in Defendants’ adverse employment actions (Doc.”
Woodard v. New York Health & Hospitals Corp., 554 F. Supp. 2d 329 (E.D.N.Y 2008). “2000) (holding that section 4312 creates an entitlement of reemployment that does not require proof of discrimination); 20 CFR § 1002.33 (2006) (“The employee is not required to prove that the employer discriminated against him or her because of the employee’s uniformed service…”
Mace v. Willis, 259 F. Supp. 3d 1007 (D.S.D. 2017). “(citing 20 C.F.R. § 1002.33 ; Francis, 452 F.3d at 303 ).”
Jbari v. Dist. of Columbia, 304 F. Supp. 3d 201 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “2006) (noting that intent is not an element of a reemployment claim) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 1002.33 ). Jbari alleges both types of claims, but MPD moves to dismiss only the reemployment claim.”
Brown v. Con-Way Freight, Inc., 891 F. Supp. 2d 912 (N.D. Ill. 2012). “3d at 442-43 ; see 20 C.F.R. § 1002.33 (“The employee is not required to prove that the employer discriminated against him or her because of the employee’s uniformed service in order to be eligible for reemployment.”
Texas Dep't of Pub. Saf. v. Leroy Torres (Tex. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “14 20 C.F.R. § 1002.33 .....................”
Petty v. Metro Govt Nashville (6th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “” 20 C.F.R. § 1002.33 ; accord Francis, 452 F.”
Jbari v. Dist. of Columbia (D.D.C. 2018). “2006) (noting that intent is not an element of a reemployment claim) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 1002.33 ). Jbari alleges both types of claims, but MPD moves to dismiss only the reemployment claim.”
Washington v. Cook Cnty. (N.D. Ill. 2025). “2d at 917 ; see also 20 C.F.R. § 1002.33 (“The employee is not required to prove that the employer discriminated against him or her because of the employee’s uniformed service in order to be eligible for reemployment.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.