U.S. Code » Title 38 » Part PART III— READJUSTMENT AND RELATED BENEFITS › Chapter CHAPTER 43— EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— PROCEDURES FOR ASSISTANCE, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATION

38 U.S.C. § 4327

Noncompliance of Federal officials with deadlines; inapplicability of statutes of limitations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 38 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Effect of Noncompliance of Federal Officials With Deadlines.—(1) The inability of the Secretary, the Attorney General, or the Special Counsel to comply with a deadline applicable to such official under section 4322, 4323, or 4324 of this title—(A) shall not affect the authority of the Attorney General or the Special Counsel to represent and file an action or submit a complaint on behalf of a person under section 4323 or 4324 of this title;(B) shall not affect the right of a person—(i) to commence an action under section 4323 of this title;(ii) to submit a complaint under section 4324 of this title; or(iii) to obtain any type of assistance or relief authorized by this chapter;(C) shall not deprive a Federal court, the Merit Systems Protection Board, or a State court of jurisdiction over an action or complaint filed by the Attorney General, the Special Counsel, or a person under section 4323 or 4324 of this title; and(D) shall not constitute a defense, including a statute of limitations period, that any employer (including a State, a private employer, or a Federal executive agency) or the Office of Personnel Management may raise in an action filed by the Attorney General, the Special Counsel, or a person under section 4323 or 4324 of this title.(2) If the Secretary, the Attorney General, or the Special Counsel is unable to meet a deadline applicable to such official in section 4322(f), 4323(a)(1), 4323(a)(2), 4324(a)(1), or 4324(a)(2)(B) of this title, and the person agrees to an extension of time, the Secretary, the Attorney General, or the Special Counsel, as the case may be, shall complete the required action within the additional period of time agreed to by the person.(b)Inapplicability of Statutes of Limitations.—If any person seeks to file a complaint or claim with the Secretary, the Merit Systems Protection Board, or a Federal or State court under this chapter alleging a violation of this chapter, there shall be no limit on the period for filing the complaint or claim.(Added Pub. L. 110–389, title III, § 311(f)(1), Oct. 10, 2008, 122 Stat. 4163.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2009–2025 · leading case: Oakley Baldwin v. City of Greensboro, 714 F.3d 828 (4th Cir. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Oakley Baldwin v. City of Greensboro, 714 F.3d 828 (4th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “” 38 U.S.C. § 4327 (b). Baldwin argues that this section was enacted to further clarify what Congress meant to do in USERRA— to bar all time limitations on claims like his—and thus, VBIA’s bar on all statutes of limitation should apply retroactively to his claims.”
Middleton v. City of Chicago, 578 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “Relevant to this appeal, the VBIA contained a provision stating that no limitations period applies to USERRA claims: “If any person seeks to file a complaint or claim with the Secretary [of Labor], the Merit Systems Protection Board, or a Federal or State court under this…”
Rodney Bodine v. Cook's Pest Control, Inc., 830 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2016). “See 38 U.S.C. § 4327 (b) (“Inapplicability of statutes of limitations — If any person seeks to file a complaint or claim .”
Jacob McGreevey v. Phh Mortg. Corp., 897 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2018). “38 U.S.C. § 4327 (b). As an alternative, McGreevey suggested the court apply Washington’s six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract claims, Wash.”
Potts v. Howard Univ. Hosp., 598 F. Supp. 2d 36 (D.D.C. 2009). · cites it 2× “at 6-7. The plaintiff argues that the claim cannot be time-barred because USERRA clearly states that there is no statute of limitations.”
Breaker v. Bemidji State Univ., 899 N.W.2d 515 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “§ 4301 (a)(1)-(3); see also 38 U.S.C. § 4327 (b) (providing that there is no statute of limitations for USERRA claims).”
Potts v. Howard Univ. Hosp., 623 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2009). “§ 4323 (1) (1998), whereas the current version, amended in October 2008, precludes application of all statutes of limitations — both federal and state — by stating simply that “there shall be no limit on the period for filing” a USERRA claim, 38 U.S.C. § 4327 (b). Thus, under…”
Mock v. City of Rome, 851 F. Supp. 2d 428 (N.D.N.Y. 2012). “See 38 U.S.C. § 4327 (b) 1 (“[Tjhere shall be no limit on the period for filing the Complaint or claim under USERRA.”
Keslosky v. Borough of Old Forge, 66 F. Supp. 3d 592 (M.D. Penn. 2014). “” 38 U.S.C. § 4327 (b). Keslosky filed this action on June 30, 2008 before the VBIA’s passage, so the four-year catch-all statute of limitations applies to his USERRA claim.”
Hickle v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 296 F. Supp. 3d 879 (S.D. Ohio 2017). “38 U.S.C. § 4327 (b) ("If any person seeks to file a complaint or claim with .”
Jerome Oswald v. BAE Indus., Inc., 483 F. App'x 30 (6th Cir. 2012). “38 U.S.C. § 4327 (b). Plaintiff admits that the amendment does not apply retroactively to his claim, 3 and nothing in the text of the statute indicates that Congress intended it to apply retroactively.”
Hogan v. United Parcel Serv., 648 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (W.D. Mo. 2009). “” 38 U.S.C. § 4327 (b) (2008). Under this amendment, any action filed after October 2008 would not be subject to a statute of limitations defense, regardless of when the relevant factual events occurred.”
Show all 30 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.