What were the legal issues in this case?
The legal issue in regard to the case between Petty v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County was about proving whether the employee, Brian Petty, was being truthful about his discharge in the army service. In addition, the case touches on the issue about violation of the Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) through postponement in the re-employing the army reservist. Brian petty argued that the metro police department had violated the law by failing to restore him to his former position of a patrol police sergeant .Secondly , he argues that that Metro discriminated against him on the basis of his service in the military which was in violation of the USERRA’S “discrimination provision”.
Metro police department had re-hired Brian petty but they did not return him to his pre-deployment position of a police Sergeant or a similar substantial position where he was responsible of supervising other officers within the police department. Instead, Petty was relegated to occasionally taking police reports and to answering phone calls from the public (Walsh, 2013,p369). The Accountability officers in the Metro police department conducted a thorough investigation into whether Brian Petty lied on the application form in the return –to-work process paperwork after admitted that he had been faced charges while working in the army in Kuwait but did not make known that he had given alcohol to an enlisted soldier and was the one responsible in the manufacture of the alcohol. It was later found that all allegations in regard to Petty’s dishonesty were unfound (Walsh, 2013,p.347).
Explain how the reemployment provisions of the USERRA were violated in this case
In this case, the central dispute is to determine whether Metro police department violated USERRA in the manner at which they handled Brian Petty’s case, a former police sergeant who sought reemployment after resigning from the military service in Kuwait. Metro had hired Petty as a police officer in the year 1991 and by the year 2002, Petty had achieved the rank of a police patrol sergeant (Workforce management,2003). In addition, he also served as a member of the Army National Guard which he had joined in 1986 but opted into army reserve in the year 1989. In the year 2003, the military service deployed Brian Petty for a military service in Iraqi Freedom.
The re-employment provisions in the USERRA were violated in this case of Petty because the USERRA mainly performed four major functions which were: To guarantee returning war veteran a right for reemployment after their service in the military. It is also responsible for prescribing the right positions that these veterans are entitled to upon their return from military service. The third function of the USERRA is to prevent employers to discriminate the veterans who are seeking re-employment on the basis of their military service. Fourth, the USERRA prevents and ensures that a returning officer is not fired without cause within one year of reemployment (Workforce management, 2003).
Explain why the court concludes that Petty has a claim for discrimination underUSERRA
The court handling this case concluded that Petty had a claim for discrimination under the provisions of USERRA since it was proven that he ha dissatisfied the stipulations for reinstatement. It concluded that Brian Petty’s re-employment petition was timely and also his discharge was honorable and therefore he should not be discriminated on the basis of his misconduct in his military service in Kuwait (Posner, 2003, p.47). In his lawsuit, petty alleged that the department of police delayed in reemploying him and when they finally reemployed him, they failed to restore him to his position of a patrol sergeant. He argued that it was very improper and discriminatory to delay and demote him by the virtue that he was serving in the military service.
However, Metro police department argued that the delay was purely for the reason of adhering to the uniformed service fitness for duty procedures and the fact that the Metro police, Nashville and the surrounding County has a Zero tolerance on dishonesty and therefore had to carry out an in-depth investigation on the reasons that led to the discharge of Petty from military services so as to know whether he cheated in his reemployment application form.
Nevertheless, Metro was not ready to conform with the requirement Acts to reinstate Petty to his former position. They used Petty’s alleged dishonesty as their defense, but the appeals court reminded by duly reminding Metro that USERRA allows an employer terminate the employment contract of a former servicemen for a ‘cause’ after re-employment, but it does not allow the employer to discriminate against the veteran officer on the basis of that ‘cause’ and to use it as an excuse not to reinstate him to his former service. In addition to proving his honesty, Petty was compliant with Metro’s return to work process. It is for this reason that Petty signed the authorization that gave metro unfettered access to all his military records and medical files and included a complete DD-214 (Workforce management,2003).
Explain what the police department should have done differently
In my opinion, I feel like the police department should have reinstated Petty to his former position honorably. The Metro police department should have followed the reemployment and discrimination provisions in the USERRA. I believe that, Brian Petty had long-served the country both in the police and military service and was therefore supposed to be treated with dignity. Brian Petty should therefore be given his position of patrol sergeant and his pay to be reinstated. Metro’s failure to put back Petty to his previous position constituted an ongoing violation of USERRA’s reemployment provisions. Therefore, I feel that if petty was still fit to offer his services to his country, then he should not be denied a chance to fulfill his will and make a living out of it.
In conclusion, it is worth noting that Job discrimination is among the undertakings that pollute a person’s working environment and has been there for countless times in the past decades. However, since this case, the US government has been in the forefront in implementing steps that would eventually ensure that the employees are not discriminated during hiring, firing, or promoting employees. According to the 1964 Civil Rights Act Title VII, an employer is expected never to discriminate their employees on the basis of color, religion, sex, or national origin (Posner,2003, p.47). Unfortunately, this vice of discrimination at the workplace is still visible in our modern workplaces. I believe in order to effectively combat this behavior and also to assist the already affected members of the society, the Federal laws regarding discrimination should be closely monitored and proper implementation processes to take place.
References
Commerce Clearing House. (1940). Labor cases. New York: Commerce Clearing
House.
Posner, R. A. (2003). Law, pragmatism, and democracy. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.:
Harvard Univ. Press.
Walsh, D. J. (2013). Employment law for human resource practice. Mason, OH: South-
Western Cengage Learning.
Workforce management. (2003). Costa Mesa, CA: Crain Communications.
