38 U.S.C. § 4311

Discrimination against persons who serve in the uniformed services and acts of reprisal prohibited

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

(a) A person who is a member of, applies to be a member of, performs, has performed, applies to perform, or has an obligation to perform service in a uniformed service shall not be denied initial employment, reemployment, retention in employment, promotion, or any benefit of employment by an employer on the basis of that membership, application for membership, performance of service, application for service, or obligation.(b) An employer may not discriminate in employment against or take any adverse employment action or other retaliatory action against any person because such person (1) has taken an action to enforce a protection afforded any person under this chapter, (2) has testified or otherwise made a statement in or in connection with any proceeding under this chapter, (3) has assisted or otherwise participated in an investigation under this chapter, or (4) has exercised a right provided for in this chapter. The prohibition in this subsection shall apply with respect to a person regardless of whether that person has performed service in the uniformed services.(c) An employer shall be considered to have engaged in actions prohibited—(1) under subsection (a), if the person’s membership, application for membership, service, application for service, or obligation for service in the uniformed services is a motivating factor in the employer’s action, unless the employer can prove that the action would have been taken in the absence of such membership, application for membership, service, application for service, or obligation for service; or(2) under subsection (b), if the person’s (A) action to enforce a protection afforded any person under this chapter, (B) testimony or making of a statement in or in connection with any proceeding under this chapter, (C) assistance or other participation in an investigation under this chapter, or (D) exercise of a right provided for in this chapter, is a motivating factor in the employer’s action, unless the employer can prove that the action would have been taken in the absence of such person’s enforcement action, testimony, statement, assistance, participation, or exercise of a right.(d) The prohibitions in subsections (a) and (b) shall apply to any position of employment, including a position that is described in section 4312(d)(1)(C) of this title.(Added Pub. L. 103–353, § 2(a), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3153; amended Pub. L. 104–275, title III, § 311(3), Oct. 9, 1996, 110 Stat. 3334; Pub. L. 118–210, title II, § 221(b), Jan. 2, 2025, 138 Stat. 2778.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 4311 was renumbered section 7611 of this title.

Amendments

2025—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 118–210 inserted “or other retaliatory action” after “employment action”.

1996—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–275 added subsec. (b) and struck out former subsec. (b) which read as follows: “An employer shall be considered to have denied a person initial employment, reemployment, retention in employment, promotion, or a benefit of employment in violation of this section if the person’s membership, application for membership, service, application for service, or obligation for service in the uniformed services is a motivating factor in the employer’s action, unless the employer can prove that the action would have been taken in the absence of such membership, application for membership, performance of service, application for service, or obligation.”

Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 104–275 added subsecs. (c) and (d) and struck out former subsec. (c) which read as follows:

“(c)(1) An employer may not discriminate in employment against or take any adverse employment action against any person because such person has taken an action to enforce a protection afforded any person under this chapter, has testified or otherwise made a statement in or in connection with any proceeding under this chapter, has assisted or otherwise participated in an investigation under this chapter, or has exercised a right provided for in this chapter.

“(2) The prohibition in paragraph (1) shall apply with respect to a person regardless of whether that person has performed service in the uniformed services and shall apply to any position of employment, including a position that is described in section 4312(d)(1)(C).”

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1996 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–275 effective Oct. 13, 1994, see section 313 of Pub. L. 104–275, set out as a note under section 4301 of this title.

Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 13, 1994, except as otherwise provided, see section 8 of Pub. L. 103–353, set out as a note under section 4301 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 696 cases (216 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Vega-Colon v. Wyeth Pharm., 625 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Vega-Colon v. Wyeth Pharm., 625 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2010). · cites it 13× “38 U.S.C. § 4311 (a). It further provides that an employer “may not discriminate in employment against or take any adverse employment action against any person because such person .”

Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1186 (2011). · cites it 4× “” 38 U. S. C. §4311 (a). It elaborates further: “An employer shall be considered to have engaged in actions prohibited .”

Kenneth Savage v. Fed. Express Corp., 856 F.3d 440 (6th Cir. 2017). · cites it 10× “Savage filed suit against FedEx in District Court on January 26, 2014, alleging USERRA discrimination and retaliation claims under 38 U.S.C. § 4311 and a claim under USERRA’s pension provision, 38 U.”

Lisdahl v. Mayo Found., 633 F.3d 712 (8th Cir. 2011). · cites it 7× “38 U.S.C. § 4311 (a). A benefit of employment is “any advantage, profit, privilege, gain, status, account, or interest (other than wages or salary for work performed) that accrues by reason of an employment contract or agreement or an employer policy, plan, or practice .”

Kassel v. City of Middletown, 272 F. Supp. 3d 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). · cites it 5× “; (2) retaliation under 38 U.S.C. § 4311 (b) and N.Y. Exec, Law §§ 290, et seq.”

Joel Bradberry v. Jefferson Cnty., Texas, 732 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2013). · cites it 6× “38 U.S.C. § 4311 (a). They also mention the next section of USERRA, which mandates reemployment of someone “whose absence from a position of employment is necessitated” by military service.”

Croft v. Vill. of Newark, 35 F. Supp. 3d 359 (W.D.N.Y. 2014). · cites it 16× “Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated 38 U.S.C. § 4311 (a) and (b). The first of these USERRA provisions states: *370 A person who is a member of, applies to be a member of, performs, has performed, applies to perform, or has an obligation to perform service in a uniformed…”

Darek Kitlinski v. Dep't of Just., 2023 MSPB 13 (MSPB 2023). · cites it 21× “He raised the following four claims: (1) the agency discriminated against him in violation of 38 U.S.C. § 4311 (a) by denying him a benefit of employment; (2) the agency discriminated against him in violation of 38 U.”

Davin Hackett v. City of South Bend, 956 F.3d 504 (7th Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “” 38 U.S.C. § 4311 (a). A “benefit of employment” includes “the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, includ- ing any advantage, profit, privilege, gain, status, account, or No.”

Sheehan v. Dep't of the Navy, 240 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2001). · cites it 3× “The operative provision, 38 U.S.C. § 4311 , states: (a) A person who is a member of, applies to be a member of, performs, has performed, applies to perform, or has an obligation to perform service in a uniformed service shall not be denied initial employment, reemployment,…”

Erickson v. United States Postal Serv., 571 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2009). · cites it 5× “USERRA prohibits discrimination against civilian employees because of their military obligations, 38 U.S.C. § 4311 , and it provides reemployment rights to those who leave them jobs to serve in the uniformed services, 38 U.”

Montoya v. Orange Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 987 F. Supp. 2d 981 (C.D. Cal. 2013). · cites it 8× “) The FAC asserts a single claim against Defendant OCSD for violation of the Uniform Servieemembers Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USER-RA”) pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 4311 . (FAC ¶¶ 18-20.) Plaintiff contends OCSD initiated and manipulated multiple personnel…”

Show all 696 citing cases →

— 38 U.S.C. § 4311(a) — 4 cases

Henry Chin Hong v. Gen. Servs. Admin. (MSPB 2023).

Joe Allen v. Dep't of the Navy (MSPB 2023).

Coleman v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (CONSENT) (M.D. Ala. 2025).

Adam McLean v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (11th Cir. 2026).

— 38 U.S.C. § 4311(c)(1) — 2 cases

Fink v. City of New York, 129 F. Supp. 2d 511 (E.D.N.Y 2001).

Vickers v. City of Memphis, 368 F. Supp. 2d 842 (W.D. Tenn. 2005).

— 38 U.S.C. § 4311(c)(2) — 1 case

Skylar Wamsley v. Bedford Cnty. (E.D. Tenn. 2026).

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.