ILNews

National Guard attorney settles with firm

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Evansville attorney and Indiana National Guardsman is settling a federal lawsuit against the Indianapolis law firm he previously worked for and sued for wrongfully refusing to re-employ him as a staff attorney when he returned from serving active duty in Iraq.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Justice entered into a settlement agreement and consent decree with law firm Mike Norris & Associates, where Mathew B. Jeffries had worked prior to his call to active duty in February 2003. In a lawsuit filed in the Southern District of Indiana earlier this year, Jeffries alleged that the firm had refused to re-employ him after his honorable discharge in April 2004, a violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994.

The act provides that those who leave their jobs to serve in the U.S. military be timely re-employed by their civilian employers in the same or comparable position that they would have held if they hadn't left to serve their country.

Jeffries filed a complaint with the Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS), which investigated, determined the claim had merit, and referred the matter to the justice department. The DOJ sued on Jeffries' behalf in March. Norris & Associates denies that it has violated the USERRA, according to the decree. Under the terms, the law firm must provide Jeffries with $40,000 to compensate him for lost wages and accrued interest.

A Mt. Vernon resident, Jeffries is now working as a bankruptcy attorney in Evansville.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT