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. § 1002.35

Is a successor in interest an employer covered by USERRA?

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

USERRA's definition of “employer” includes a successor in interest. In general, an employer is a successor in interest where there is a substantial continuity in operations, facilities, and workforce from the former employer. The determination whether an employer is a successor in interest must be made on a case-by-case basis using a multi-factor test that considers the following:

(a) Whether there has been a substantial continuity of business operations from the former to the current employer;

(b) Whether the current employer uses the same or similar facilities, machinery, equipment, and methods of production;

(c) Whether there has been a substantial continuity of employees;

(d) Whether there is a similarity of jobs and working conditions;

(e) Whether there is a similarity of supervisors or managers; and,

(f) Whether there is a similarity of products or services.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2024 · leading case: Reynolds v. Rehabcare Grp. East Inc., 590 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (S.D. Iowa 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Reynolds v. Rehabcare Grp. East Inc., 590 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (S.D. Iowa 2008). · cites it 3× “20 C.F.R. § 1002.35 . A nearly identical test for successor liability was employed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Leib v.”
Reynolds v. Rehabcare Grp. East Inc., 531 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (S.D. Iowa 2008). · cites it 3× “20 C.F.R. § 1002.35 . A nearly identical test for successor liability was employed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Leib v.”
Reynolds v. RehabCare Grp. East, Inc., 591 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2010). “at 1121 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 1002.35 ). Reynolds previously had been employed by Progressive, not Green Hills or RehabCare, and was stationed at Green Hills.”
Murphree v. Commc'ns Tech., Inc., 460 F. Supp. 2d 702 (E.D. La. 2006). “See 20 C.F.R. § 1002.35 . The primary regulation provides: USERRA’s definition of “employer” includes a successor in interest.”
Porter v. Trans States Airlines, LLC (D. Colo. 2024). “20 C.F.R. § 1002.35 . employer, TSH maintains some information (if incomplete) concerning Mr.”
Pamela Reynolds v. Rehabcare Grp. East (8th Cir. 2010). “at 1121 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 1002.35 ). Reynolds previously had been employed by Progressive, not Green Hills or RehabCare, and was stationed at Green Hills.”
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.