38 U.S.C. § 4302

Relation to other law and plans or agreements

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 38 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Nothing in this chapter shall supersede, nullify or diminish any Federal or State law (including any local law or ordinance), contract, agreement, policy, plan, practice, or other matter that establishes a right or benefit that is more beneficial to, or is in addition to, a right or benefit provided for such person in this chapter.(b) This chapter supersedes any State law (including any local law or ordinance), contract, agreement, policy, plan, practice, or other matter that reduces, limits, or eliminates in any manner any right or benefit provided by this chapter, including the establishment of additional prerequisites to the exercise of any such right or the receipt of any such benefit.(Added Pub. L. 103–353, § 2(a), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3150.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 4302, added Pub. L. 93–508, title IV, § 404(a), Dec. 3, 1974, 88 Stat. 1596, § 2022; amended Pub. L. 97–295, § 4(71), Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1310; Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, § 402(36), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3360; renumbered § 4302 and amended Pub. L. 102–568, title V, § 506(a), (c)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4340, 4341, related to procedures to enforce reemployment rights, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 103–353. This section, as in effect on the day before Oct. 13, 1994, continues to apply to reemployments initiated before the end of the 60-day period beginning Oct. 13, 1994, see section 8 of Pub. L. 103–353, as amended, set out as an Effective Date under section 4301 of this title.

Another prior section 4302 was renumbered section 7602 of this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective with respect to reemployments initiated on or after the first day after the 60-day period beginning Oct. 13, 1994, with transition rules, see section 8 of Pub. L. 103–353, set out as a note under section 4301 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 77 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Wysocki v. Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp., 607 F.3d 1102 (6th Cir. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wysocki v. Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp., 607 F.3d 1102 (6th Cir. 2010). · cites it 16× “On appeal, Wysocki argues that the district court abused its discretion when it converted his motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and that 38 U.S.C. § 4302 (b) of USERRA supercedes the Release.”

Rodney Bodine v. Cook's Pest Control, Inc., 830 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2016). · cites it 15× “2 Bodine responded that USERRA’s non-waiver provision, 38 U.S.C. § 4302 (b), precluded enforcement of the arbitration agreement, despite the FAA, because the plain language of § 4302(b) prevents enforcement of any agreement that contains terms that reduce substantive USERRA…”

Kevin Ziober v. Blb Resources, Inc., 839 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “Central to this appeal, 38 U.S.C. § 4302 (b) provides: This chapter supersedes any State law (including any local law or ordinance), contract, agreement, policy, plan, practice, or other matter that reduces, limits, or eliminates in any manner any right or benefit provided by…”

Landis v. Pinnacle Eye Care, LLC, 537 F.3d 559 (6th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “(quoting 38 U.S.C. § 4302 (b)). By agreeing to arbitration, a party does not forego the substantive rights provided by the statute, but rather it submits its claims to an arbitral forum instead of a judicial forum.”

Sedric Ward v. Shelby Cnty., Tenn., 98 F.4th 688 (6th Cir. 2024). · cites it 8× “38 U.S.C. § 4302 . The district court found this requirement unmet because, the court said, “three weeks of back-pay and a reinstatement with probation is objectively less beneficial than Plaintiff’s rights under USERRA[.”

Joel Bradberry v. Jefferson Cnty., Texas, 732 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “See 38 U.S.C. § 4302 (a). The section also notes the intent to supersede any state law that reduces or eliminates any right provided under USER-RA, "including the establishment of additional prerequisites to the exercise of any such *554 right or the receipt of any such benefit.”

Garrett v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 449 F.3d 672 (5th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “JONES, Chief Judge: The issue in this case is whether a provision of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”), 38 U.S.C. § 4302 (b), which protects the employment rights of members of the armed forces, precludes the enforcement of individual…”

Torres v. Texas Dep't of Pub. Saf., 597 U.S. 580 (2022). “2 The Court invokes 38 U. S. C. §4302 (b) to bolster its interpretation of §4323, see ante, at 12, but that provision supersedes only those state laws that abridge the “right[s]” and “benefit[s]” defined in §4303(2).”

Lopez v. Dillard's, Inc., 382 F. Supp. 2d 1245 (D. Kan. 2005). · cites it 4× “The answer to this question is controlled by 38 U.S.C. § 4302 (b), which states, This chapter supersedes any State law (including any local law or ordinance), contract, agreement, policy, plan, practice, or other matter that reduces, limits, or eliminates in any manner any right…”

Petty v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville-Davidson Cnty., 538 F.3d 431 (6th Cir. 2008). “See 38 U.S.C. § 4302 (b) (US-ERRA supersedes local policies).”

Jerome Oswald v. BAE Indus., Inc., 483 F. App'x 30 (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 3× “DISCUSSION The thrust of Plaintiffs substantive argument on appeal is that a provision of USERRA, 38 U.S.C. § 4302 (b), prevents the contractual reduction of rights under USERRA.”

Kane v. Town of Sandwich, 123 F. Supp. 3d 147 (D. Mass. 2015). · cites it 2× “” 38 U.S.C. § 4302 (a). Kane argues that because of this language, USERRA does not preempt but expressly preserves his state law claims.”

Show all 77 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.