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.
on Facebook & Twitter
Back to Top
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.
Forcing a defendant to wear a stun belt, in court or otherwise, is a violation of american principles! It is also unconstitutional!