ILNews

Court upholds Plymouth pay policy challenged by reservist

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The city of Plymouth’s policy on longevity pay withstood a challenge by a police officer who unsuccessfully claimed he was entitled to the full benefit rather than a prorated share for time he spent deployed as a U.S. Air Force Reservist.

Plymouth was granted summary judgment Monday by U.S. District Judge James T. Moody of the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend in Robert D. DeLee v. City of Plymouth, 3:12-CV-380. 

Patrolman Robert DeLee, a veteran of the Plymouth Police Department, was called up for eight months during his 12th year of employment in September 2010. For the prior year, he received a check for $2,475, based on his 11 years on the force. Plymouth awards longevity pay of $225 per year.

When DeLee returned to active duty on the police force, he got a longevity check for $900 – $2,700 for 12 years of service prorated by the number of months he was on inactive status as a police officer. Because he was on inactive status for two-thirds of the year, he received one-third of the 12-year benefit. After Plymouth refused his request for the full benefit, DeLee sued, claiming the city’s ordinances violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, 38 U.S.C. § 4316.    

“It is undisputed that if DeLee had remained continuously employed by Plymouth but taken an eight-month leave for any reason, such as an extended illness, his longevity pay would have been prorated just as it was,” Moody wrote in finding for the city. “Thus,
§ 4316 of the USERRA does not prohibit Plymouth from making a pro-rata reduction to DeLee’s longevity pay for the eight-month period of work he missed while on 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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT