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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT