Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): § 6323(a), leave which is never afforded to nonmilitary personnel. Furthermore, the cases Defendants cite in support of their contention address situations in which employers had unilateral policies affording additional benefits or rights to absent military personnel. While courts have consistently held that employers do not commit a USERRA violation in revoking these extra benefits, these cases do not address USERRA rights provided by statute. See Crews v. City of Mt. Vernon, 567 F.3d 860, 865 (7th Cir.2009) (rescission of a flexible work scheduling program did not constitute a USERRA violation); Gross v. PPG Indus., Inc., 636 F.3d 884, 889 (7th Cir.2011) (rescission of differential pay policy did not violate US-ERRA); Welshans v. U.S. Postal Serv., 550 F.3d 1100, 1104 (Fed.Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). There is simply no plausible argument that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that revocation of benefits provided by the employee and labor relations manual did not implicate userra (B) holding an employee manual did not create contract restricting the employmentatwill relationship (C) holding enforceable employee manual that was distributed to all employees (D) holding that there was no employment contract where personnel manual provided that after three months an employee became a permanent employee where there was no additional expression as to duration (E) holding employee manual binding based in part on its widespread distribution
Output (English): holding an employee manual did not create contract restricting the employmentatwill relationship