A Case study for employment and labor law

 A Case study for employment and labor law

Introduction

It is before the United States District court, S. D. Illinois. There are two motions that are briefed fully and ready for the ruling. The plaintiff, Ryan Crews is denied the motion for summary judgement while the defendants, City of Mt. Vernon, Chris Diechman and Chris Mendenall is granted the motion for summary judgement by the court. This is done according to the Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Complaint is launched by Crews claiming that his employers had allegedly violated the “USERRA”. In this study we shall see the employments acts that Crews had been denied by his employers and also what made him loose the motion as well as the reasons to that.

Overview

Crews is not only a member of the Illinois Army National Guard but also a police officer of the city of mt Vernon.Due to this he is required to attend drills or the periodic training exercises for one weekend per month and these drills happen to occur when the guard is on scheduled duty and this creates chaos since while they are away it is not their schedule day off.  Crews claims that they guard can switch schedules and work during the day offs instead. Crews. The police department had also denied him benefits of his employment, the costs and attorney’s fees as well as the injunctive and equitable relief. All the police department members are all professionals in either military or police service. Crews has been to Iraq for active duty in 2003 and 2005 and after deployment he would return to the city. In the city now policy has changed now and no one is allowed work in the days scheduled off for them to compensate the days or hours they have lost since 2006.this is where the greatest conflict is arising from.

Status

All necessary processes for a summary judgement summary to take place that is the pleadings followed by despotions, interrogatories answering with files admission were conducted.  When a reasonable evidence is achieved the burden moves to the non-movant or the defender’s side but if it lacks genuine issue of factual material the movant side is therefore affected. This is the party that has made the motion in the court in our case it will Crews..

“USERRA” states that any person who is its member, acts, has acted, has applied to be a member or has the task of performing in a uniformed service shall receive all employer benefits which include profits and gains, account, status,employers’policies and pension plans. employer violates employees act when a person’s service to the uniformed services motivates them to take an action on the employer and only if they have a prove to the action. In accordance to Crews the defendants changed the policies to stop practice of switching duties when some were required for the Guard drill.

Case analysis

The veteran’s reemployment Rights Handbook “VRRA” which is the USERRA predecessorstatute there is a law that states that the employer is not mandate to pay the employee or compensate them for time spent in military training duty. Due to these employers have incorporated contractual and also voluntary roles which emphasizes on reservists than statute .It is also stated in USERRA section  4316(b)(1)that benefits and some rights cant be dictated by seniority, status, but will be treated equally without favoritism and but according to the terms and conditions they had agreed with the other.  Contractual & voluntary roles and USSERA regulations easily can finish employment problems.