## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 2699 J UAN S ANDOVA L a nd S IDN EY P EN NIX, P laint if fs -App el lants , v.
C ITY OF C HI CAGO, I LLINO IS, D efend a nt-A pp ellee
.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 07 C2835

— Suzan ne B. C onl on, Ju dge
.
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 23, 2009

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 30, 2009

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, C h i e f Ju dge, an d K ANN E a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . E A S TERB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e . Tw o ofChica go’ s pol i ce offi cer s fi l ed thi s s uitunder the U ni f orm ed Se rv i ces Empl o y men ta nd R e e mpl o y men tR i g ht s Ac t, 3 8 U. S
. C. §§ 4301 –35. They want to be ser gea nts. Thi s pos ition re quir es a co m peti ti ve exam i n at i on, wh i ch al l candi dates ta ke sim u lta n eo u sly to cu rt ail th e ris ks of c h ea tin g. C h icago sche du l ed an exam f orM ar ch 25, 20 06. J uan Sa nd ova l2 N o. 08

- 2699 and Si dn ey Pennix then w er e on m i l i tar y duty

— Sandova l i n El S a l v a do r a nd Pe nn i x i n I r a q. Bo th a s k e d f or an opportunity t o take the te st outsi de the U ni ted S tat es. E r n s t& Y o u n ga d mi n i s t e r s C h i c a g o ’ s c i v i l

- s e r v i c e e x a ms ou ts id e Chi cago . Both S andovaland Penni x w er e o ff er ed th e op p ortu nity to sit fo r the ex am i n E rnst & You ng ’s cl ose st offi ces ( San Sal vadorf orS andoval, Fr ankfurt f or Pen ni x)
. Bo th a c c e pt e d thi s o ff e r wi tho utp r o t e s t ; bo th passed and w er e pl aced i n the el i gibi l i ty l i st; and both fi l ed sui t a s s oo n as t h e fi rs t per son w as prom ote d fr om that l i st. Sandova l and Penni x conte n d that they woul d have done bet ter, and bee n prom ote d ea rli er, had the tes ts been off er ed cl ose r to th e place s where they w er e s tati o ne d. The y s aytha t Chi ca g o s ho ul d hav e a r r an g ed f o r the m i l i tar y t o adm i ni ste r the e xam o n b as e. They al so see k co m pe n s a t i o n f o r wh a t th e y d e s c r ib e a s th e c o s ta nd d an ge r of re ac h in g S a n Sa lva d or or Fr an kfu rtfrom th eir mi l i t a r y - d u t y s t a t i o n s . T h e d i s t r i c t co u r tg r a n t e d s u mm ar y j udg m en t f o r Chi ca g o , howev er, a fte r c o nc l udi ng th atChi ca g o di d notdi sc r i m i na te a g ai ns t per so ns s er vi ng in th e m ilita ry . 200 8 U .S. D ist . L EXIS46 52 1 (N .D . I ll. Jun e 13, 2008 ). J uri sdic ti on i s the fi rs t quest ion
. S uit s a gai nst pr i vate e mpl o y e r s u n d e r th e Un i f o r me d S e r v i c e s E mpl o y m en t and Reem plo ym ent Ri ghts A ct m ay be filed i n federa l cour t, but sui ts aga i ns t stat es m ust be fi l ed i n sta te c o u r t
. C o mp a r e 3 8 U
. S
. C
. § 4 3 2 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) w i th ( b ) ( 3 )
. We he l d i n Velasq u ez v . Frapw el l , 165 F.3d 593 ( 7th Cir. 1999), th a tth i s me an s onlyst ate co urt: §4 323(b) i s desi gned toN o. 08

- 2699 3

avo i d probl em s under the e l eve nth am endm ent with f edera l suits agai nst s tat es. S ee Se m i nol e Tri b ev. Fl or i da , 51 7 U
. S. 44 ( 1996 )
. But §432 3( i ) defi nes “ pri vate em plo yer ” t o i ncl ud e a subdi vi si on o fa sta te f or t h e p u rpos e o f§4 323. So t h e hol ding ofV

ela squez c o nc e r ns o nl y s ui t s a g a i ns t sta tes them sel ves. Chica go i s a “pol i ti calsubdi vi si on” of I l l i no i s , a nd s ubj e c t
- mat t e r j ur i s di c t i o n i s e s t a b l i s he d. Sandova l and Penni x re l y on 38 U
. S. C. §431 1( a) , wh i ch provi des thata perso n ser vi ng in t h e m i l i tar y m ay not b e “ d en ied

. . . an y b en efit of em p loy m en t . . . on th e b as is of that” ser vi ce. Pl ai nti ff s say that they in c u rr ed h igh er co st s, an d m or e ris k, to ta k e t h e i r te st s t h an d id p er so n s n ot se rv in g w ith m ilita ry u n its ; th ey m ain ta in that they w oul d have s cor ed hi gherhad the tes ts been m or e c o nv e ni e nt
. T he p r o b l e m wi th thi s v i e w i s that §4 31 1 is an an ti -d isc rim in at ion ru le

— i t s c a pt i o n r e a ds “D isc rim in at ion ag ain st p er so n s w h o s er ve in t h e u n if or m ed ser vi ces and acts ofr epri salpro hibited”. S ee Vel azq uez- Garc i a v. Hor izon Li ne s of Pue r t o Ri co, Inc . , 47 3 F.3d 11, 17 ( 1st C ir. 2007); M il le r v. Ind ia n a polis , 28 1 F
. 3d 648, 650–51 ( 7 t h C ir. 2002). San d oval and Pen nix w ere not turned away be cause they w er e o n a c tive duty; to the c ontr ar y, Chicago ar ra nged f orea ch to ta ke the t est outsi de the U ni ted St ate s. Se cti on 4311 ( a) requ i re s Ch i c a g o t o t r e a t pe r s o ns o n mi l i t a r y s e r v i c e the s a me as othe r em plo yees, wh i ch i t di d. I fpl ai nti ff s had be en o n vaca tio n, o r on l eave to at tend col l ege abr oad, they w o u ld h ave be en treated exac tly as they w ere. So w he re i s th e di sc r i m i na ti o n? W hat S andovaland Penni x w an t is no t the sa m e t re atm en t as e ve r y o ne e l se ( ana nt i

- di sc r i m i na ti o n n o r m ) , b ut4 N o. 08

- 2699 bettertr eat m ent than thos e who ar e a tte nd i ng co l l ege or ot h er w ise ou ts id e C h ica go w h en a te st is offe re d . In othe r w or ds, theyse ek an acc om m odati on r atherthan equal tr eat m ent. But §43 11 does not re q u i re acc om m odatio n, w h ich is fu n d am en ta lly d iffer en t fro m an eq u altr eat m ent no rm . S ee U niversi ty of A labam a v. G arre tt, 531 U
. S. 356 (2001); Em ploym entD ivis ion v. Sm it h , 49 4 U
. S. 872 (1990). The opportunity t o tak e a te st that i s r equi re d fo r prom oti on i s a “be nefi t o fem plo ym ent” that Ch icago m ay not deny to per sons i n the ar m ed ser vi ces. Because Chi ca g o e xt en ded th ato ppo r tu ni tyt o S an do va l a nd P en n ix on th e s a m e t er m s a va ilab le t o p er so n s n ot in m i l i tar y s er vi ce, i t co m pli ed w ith it s o bl i gat i ons und er § 4 3 1 1 ( a )
. Co ng r e s s i s fr e e t o requi re e mpl o y e r s t o do m o re

— an d perh ap s C hicag o w ou ld h ave d one m ore vol untari l y had S andovalo r Pennix a ske d fo r on-base adm i ni str ati on o fthe tes t

—but th e st atut e o n the b o o k s f o rb i d s d i s c r i mi n a t i o n w i th o u tr e q u i r i n ga c c o mm o dat i o n. Anothe r s ec ti o n o fthe A ct dr i ve s ho m e th e poi nt by r equi ring em plo yer s t o tr eatper sons on l eave f orm i l i tar y s er vi ce the sa m e a s perso n s w ho a re o n l eave f oro therreas ons. 38 U
. S. C. §43 16. A requi re m ent o f equal tr eat m ent i s i ncom p atibl e with a dem and fo r pref er enti altr eat m ent. S ee Tu l l y v. Depa r t men to f Ju s t ice, 48 1 F.3d 136 7, 1369 –70 (Fed

. Cir. 2007); R ogers v. S a n A ntonio , 392 F.3d 758, 764 (5th Cir. 2004). Pl ai nti ff s do not gi ve any thought to the cos ts th at th eir ( bel ate d) requ estf oro n-ba se adm i ni str ati on would have im p ose d o n Chi ca g o a nd the mil i ta r y . W he n r equi r i ngN o. 08

- 2699 5

ac co m m o dat i o n, Co ng r es s us ua ll y s et s l i m i ts o n the e xp e ns e a nd i nc o nv e ni e nc e tha t a n e mpl o y e r mus tbea r to p ro vid e t h at be n efit . See , e.g., Tran s Wo rld A irlines, Inc . v. Har di s on , 4 3 2 U. S
. 6 3 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ( d i s c u s s i n gt he ac co m m o dat i o n- o f

- r el i g ionc l au se i n Ti tl e VI Io fthe C ivi l R igh ts A ct of 1964, 42 U
. S. C
. §2000 e–2(a)(1)) ; Vande Zandev. Wi s co ns i n Depa r t m e ntof Adm i ni s t ration , 44 F. 3d 538 ( 7th Cir
. 1995 ) ( disc ussing the a ccom m odati on r equir em ent in the A m er i c an s w i th Di sabi l i ti es A ct, 42 U
. S. C. §121 12( b) ( 5) ( A ) )
. S ecti on 4 311( a) doe s n ot seta c a p o n c o s t, h o we v e r, b e c a u s e i t d o e s n o t r e qu i r e a c c o mm odati on i n the fi rs t pl ace. Pl ai nti ff s’ r em ain i ng ar gum ents have been consi dered b utdo n o tr e qu i r e di s c us s i o n. T he j ud g men ti s a ffi r med

.

3- 30- 09