ILNews

US complaint: Plymouth reservist deprived of benefits

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A U.S. Air Force reservist was illegally denied longevity pay when he returned to his job as a police officer in Plymouth, according to a federal complaint.

U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana David Capp said a complaint had been filed against the city alleging violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994.

Reservist Robert D. DeLee has been a patrolman in Plymouth for more than a dozen years and has been a member of the Air Force Reserve since before joining the force, according to a news release.

DeLee was mobilized for active duty from September 2010 to May 2011, but when he returned to active duty on the police force, the department refused him longevity pay that he would have received if he had not been called up, the complaint alleges.

“No service member should ever lose their seniority-based benefits provided by civilian employment because they took time out to protect our country,” said Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division. “No employer, whether a city or a private company, can deprive a service member of rights that USERRA affords through implementation of its own policy or local ordinances.”

Subject to certain conditions, USERRA requires employers to promptly re-employ returning service members to the position they would have held had their employment not been interrupted by military service, and to provide them with all benefits of employment to which the employee would have been entitled if he or she had not been called up to active duty.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT