IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-41040

JOEL BRADBERRY,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Texas

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

LESLIE H. SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judge:

Joel Bradberry brought suit against his former employer, the Jefferson

County Sheriff’s Department. He alleged that after fulfilling his two-week

training obligation with the United States Army Reserve, he was terminated in

violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act

(“USERRA”), 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4335, and TEXASGOVERNMENTCODE §§ 613.001-

613.023. Bradberry moved for partial summary judgment on the ground that

Jefferson County was collaterally estopped from relitigating facts determined in

a state administrative proceeding. The district court denied the motion but

granted Bradberry’s request to certify its order for appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292(b). We agreed to take the appeal. We AFFIRM.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 17, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 12-41040 Document: 00512412336 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/17/2013
No. 12-41040

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Bradberry was employed by Jefferson County as a corrections officer from

February 2007 to December 2008. During that time, he also was a member of

the United States Army Reserve. Bradberry was ordered to report for his

annual Reserve training from September 1 through September 12, 2008, and

was scheduled to return to civilian work on September 13. He provided a copy

of his orders to Jefferson County prior to reporting for military duty. Bradberry

did not report back to work until the evening of September 16, missing scheduled

work shifts on September 13 and 14.

According to Bradberry, as a result of Hurricane Ike’s imminent landfall

on September 13, Army Captain Dwayne Rose orally extended his orders and

required him to go to Abilene, Texas, and remain there until released. 

Bradberry contacted Jefferson County on September 12 to report that he would

not be at work the next day because of his new military orders. Bradberry was

released from duty at 7:00 a.m. on September 15, and he reported to work the

next day. He was scheduled for a midnight shift on September 17.

Jefferson County ordered Bradberry to provide documentation about the

extension of his military duty to include September 13-16, the dates not covered

by his original orders. Although Bradberry provided memoranda from his

commanding officers, he did not provide the type of documentation the County

requested. The County initiated an internal investigation into Bradberry’s

conduct, then terminated him in December 2008. 

The County’s explanation of the basis for Bradberry’s termination was in

an F-5 Report of Separation of Licensee. A Texas law enforcement agency is

required to file an F-5 Report on all officers when they leave employment with

the agency. The report is filed with the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement

Officers Standards and Education (“TCLEOSE”). The F-5 Report describes the

circumstances under which an officer left the agency, and whether he was

2

 Case: 12-41040 Document: 00512412336 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/17/2013
No. 12-41040

honorably discharged, generally discharged, or dishonorably discharged. TEX.

OCC. CODE § 1701.452. The F-5 Report becomes part of the officer’s permanent

TCLEOSE record. If the officer seeks employment with another law

enforcement agency, the agency is required to review employment termination

reports before hiring the officer. 37 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 217.7(a)(1). 

Bradberry’sF-5 Report categorized his discharge as “dishonorable,” saying

he was “terminated for an administrative violation(s) of truthfulness or

insubordination.” An explanation of separation attached to the report stated

that Bradberry was insubordinate, absent without leave, and failed to answer

questions truthfully or provide documentation and relevant statements to the

Sheriff or any supervisor in the departmental investigation when ordered.

An officer who receives an F-5 Report “may contest information contained

in the report” by filing a petition with the TCLEOSE, which then refers the

matter to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. TEX. OCC. CODE §

1701.4525(a).1 An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) will conduct a hearing to

determine whether “the alleged misconduct occurred by a preponderance of the

evidence . . . . If the alleged misconduct is not supported by a preponderance of

the evidence, the administrative law judge shall order the report to be changed.”

TEX. OCC. CODE § 1701.4525(e). Bradberry utilized these procedures. In

September 2009, an ALJ found insufficient evidence and ordered the County and

TCLEOSE to amend the F-5 Report “to show that [Bradberry] was terminated

at will,” and required that the explanation attached to the F-5 Report “should

read he was terminated for a disagreement over military leave.”

Bradberry had also filed a complaint with the United States Department

of Labor. See 38 U.S.C. § 4322(a). In March 2009, the assistant director in

Texas of the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service which is authorized by

1 The TCLEOSE order stated: “The subject of this case is the accuracy of the F-5 report

concerning Mr. Bradberry’s departure from the Sheriff’s Department.”

3

 Case: 12-41040 Document: 00512412336 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/17/2013
No. 12-41040

Section 4321 of Title 38 to review such complaints, found that the County, “while

not intentionally, did violate” Section 4311 (c) by discriminating against him due

to his military service. Later in March, the same assistant director sent a memo

to the Attorney General, recommending suit be brought against the County for

violations of Section 4311 (a), (b), and (c). In August 2009, the Attorney General

declined to bring suit, but a declination does not bar a claimant from bringing

his own suit. See 38 U.S.C. § 4323(a)(3)(C). 

In May 2011, Bradberry filed suit in federal court, claiming the County

violated USERRA and Chapter 613 of the Texas Government Code when it

terminated his employment.2 His motion for partial summary judgment relied

on the doctrine of collateral estoppel to prevent the County from relitigating the

ALJ’s findings. The court declined to apply collateral estoppel and denied the

motion. At Bradberry’s request, the court certified the case for interlocutory

appeal pursuant to Section 1292(b). The court certified the following questions:

(1) whether collateral estoppel bars relitigation of the ALJ’s findings in federal

court; (2) whether USERRA preempts Chapter 613; and (3) whether a federal

district court can exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim under Chapter

613. We granted Bradberry’s motion for leave to appeal.

DISCUSSION

I. USERRA

The parties on appeal have argued issues that arise under a provision of

USERRA that bars employment discrimination on the basis of military service. 

38 U.S.C. § 4311(a). They also mention the next section of USERRA, which

mandates reemployment of someone “whose absence from a position of

employment is necessitated” by military service. 38 U.S.C. § 4312(a). As we will

2 The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(c). Because the magistrate judge is a judicial officer of the district court, we will refer to

the magistrate judge’s rulings as being those of the “district court.”

4

 Case: 12-41040 Document: 00512412336 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/17/2013
No. 12-41040

discuss, “reemployment” includes a return to a civilian position after even a brief

interruption for military duty.

We step back briefly from the issues of this case to get some perspective

on the congressional enactment. USERRA was adopted in 1994 as the first

significant modification in protection of veterans’ employment rights in 50 years. 

“Veterans’ Law Note,” ARMY LAWYER 40 (Dec. 1994). Almost eleven years after the

enactment, the Department of Labor adopted regulations pursuant to its

statutory authority. 38 U.S.C. § 4331(a); 20 C.F.R. §§ 1002.1-1002.314. 

Congress enacted USERRA for three stated purposes: “(1) to encourage

noncareer service in the uniformed services” by reducing employment

disadvantages; “(2) to minimize the disruption to the lives of persons performing”

military service, their employers and others “by providing for the prompt

reemployment of such persons upon their completion of such service; and (3) to

prohibit discrimination against persons because of their service in the uniformed

services.” 38 U.S.C. § 4301(a). All three purposes are relevant in this case. 

Two separate sections of USERRA apply to this case. One concerns

discrimination against those in the militarywhen making employment decisions. 

38 U.S.C. § 4311. The other protects the employment of those returning to their

former civilian jobs after temporary military duty. § 4312. These sections

provide distinct causes of action, as other circuits have earlier held. See, e.g.,

Francis v. Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc., 452 F.3d 299, 303 (4th Cir. 2006). As

we will explain, both sections may at times be relevant.

Section 4311 provides that a servicemember “shall not be denied . . .

reemployment, retention in employment, . . . or any benefit of employment”

because of the person’s military service. 38 U.S.C. § 4311(a). An employer will

violate this prohibition when “membership, application for membership, service,

application for service, or obligation for service in the uniformed services is a

motivating factor” in an employment decision. § 4311(c)(1). 

5

 Case: 12-41040 Document: 00512412336 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/17/2013
No. 12-41040

By referring to a “motivating factor,” the statute does not textually suggest

that military service be the sole factor. A Department of Labor regulation states

that a plaintiff “has the burden of proving that a status or activity protected by

USERRA was one of the reasons” for the employer’s decision. 20 C.F.R. §

1002.22. The employer, though, is not liable under USERRA if it “can prove that

the action would have been taken in the absence of such membership,

application for membership, service, application for service, or obligation for

service.” 38 U.S.C. § 4311(c)(1). The regulation elaborates on this provision: “If

the individual succeeds in proving that the status or activity protected by

USERRA was one of the reasons the employer took action against him or her,

the employer has the burden to prove the affirmative defense that it would have

taken the action anyway.” 20 C.F.R. § 1002.22.3

The second section of USERRA relevant for this case provides Reservists

the right to reemployment when their “absence from a position of employment

is necessitated by reason of service in the uniformed services.” 38 U.S.C.

§ 4312(a). “Reemployment” might suggest that a Reservist has left a position for

some lengthy period and is trying to regain a vacant position. It is clear, though,

that Section 4312 applies to any military-approved absence from a civilian

position. For example, one section applies to situations such as Bradberry’s in

3 These regulations were adopted in 2005. Uniformed Services Employment and

Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, As Amended, 70 Fed. Reg. 75246 (Dec. 19, 2005). The

Department of Labor cited USERRA’s legislative history and caselaw interpreting USERRA

after its 1994 passage to support the decision to require an employer to prove as an affirmative

defense that it would have terminated the employee anyway. Id. at 75250. Assigning an

employee the burden to prove the prohibited reason was a “motivating factor” in an

employment decision, then requiring that a employer prove an affirmative defense that the

same decision would have been made without that reason, is an approach modeled on the

Supreme Court’s interpretation of the evidentiary burdens of Section 10(c) of the National

Labor Relations Act. Id. (citing NLRB v. Transp. Mgmt. Corp., 462 U.S. 393, 401 (1983)).

6

 Case: 12-41040 Document: 00512412336 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/17/2013
No. 12-41040

which the military service is less than 31 days. § 4312(e)(1)(A).4 A Reservist is

not automatically entitled to reemployment when returning from military

service. The right depends on the servicemember meeting certain obligations:

[A]ny person whose absence from a position of employment is

necessitated by reason of service in the uniformed services shall be

entitled to the reemployment rights and benefits and other

employment benefits of this chapter if – 

(1) the person (or an appropriate officer of the uniformed

service in which such service is performed) has given advance

written or [oral] notice of such service to such person’s employer;

(2) [the cumulative length of absences is not more than five

years]; and

(3) except as provided in subsection (f), the person reports to,

or submits an application for reemployment to, such employer in

accordance with the provisions of subsection (e).

§ 4312(a) (emphasis added). Section (3) refers to subsections (e) and (f), the

former providing time deadlines and other details for applications for

reemployment and the latter providing rules for documenting the service.

A Reservist who meets the criteria for reemployment under Section 4312

must be promptly reemployed following a return from a period of service. 38

U.S.C. § 4312(f)(4). As explained in the provisions just quoted, reemployment

is conditioned upon proper advance notice and timely return following the

completion of service. See § 4312(a)(1), §4312(e)(1)(A)(i). 

Obviously, then, a Section 4312 claim is not based, as is Section 4311, on

a wide variety of situations that arise in the workplace and are discriminatory

against military service. Instead, it protects a civilian employee who has been

gone for a period of time on military duty, no matter how brief, and has not been

reemployed because of that military service. The Department of Labor

4 When the Department of Labor responded to public comments on its proposed

regulations, it applied USERRA protections for reemployment to a Reservist who returned to

work from a weekend drill. USERRA, 70 Fed. Reg. at 75259 (discussing Gordon v. WAWA,

Inc., 388 F.3d 78 (3d Cir. 2004)).

7

 Case: 12-41040 Document: 00512412336 Page: 7 Date Filed: 10/17/2013
No. 12-41040

regulations on reemployment set out eligibility requirements for reemployment,

including details about the notice to be given the employer about the duty. See 

20 C.F.R. §§ 1002.85-1002.86. Documentation of the military service may also

be demanded by the employer, though reemployment is to occur immediately

and the adequacy of documentation reviewed thereafter. 38 U.S.C. § 4312(f); 20

C.F.R. §§ 1002.122-1002.123. 

The Department of Labor summarized five general requirements for a

servicemember to be eligible for reemployment: 

(1) That the service member be absent from a position of civilian

employment by reason of service in the uniformed services;

(2) That the service member’s employer be given advance notice of

the service;

(3) That the service member have five years or less of cumulative

service in the uniformed services with respect to a position of

employment with a particular employer;

(4) That the service member return to work or apply for

reemployment in a timely manner after conclusion of service; and

(5) That the service member not have been separated from service

with a disqualifying discharge or under other than honorable

conditions.

USERRA, 70 Fed. Reg. at 75251; see also 20 C.F.R. § 1002.32. Even when a

servicemember satisfies these obligations, the employer has statutory defenses

to its failure to reemploy. 38 U.S.C. § 4312(d). These are also affirmative

defenses for the employer. 20 C.F.R. § 1002.139. 

The regulations, on both discrimination and on reemployment rights,

make a reasonable interpretation of the evidentiary burdens of those claims and

their respective defenses. We apply them to the present dispute. 

A Section 4311 claim requires a plaintiff to prove his or her “membership,

application for membership, service, application for service, or obligation for

service in the uniformed services is a motivating factor in the employer’s action”;

the employer is then required, if it has asserted the affirmative defense, to prove

8

 Case: 12-41040 Document: 00512412336 Page: 8 Date Filed: 10/17/2013
No. 12-41040

“the action would have been taken in the absence of such membership,

application for membership, service, application for service, or obligation for

service.”5

38 U.S.C. § 4311(c)(1). For a Section 4312 claim, a plaintiff must,

among other things, show that the requirements for notice and documentation

have been met. The employer bears the burden of proof for any affirmative

defenses upon which it relies.

Section 4311 discrimination can appear throughout the employment

continuum, from consideration for hiring to employee termination. Section 4312

is much narrower, applying to a return to the civilian workplace after a period

of military duty. Unlike for a Section 4311 claim, an “employee is not required

to prove that the employer discriminated against him or her because of the

employee’s uniformed service in order to be eligible for reemployment.” 20

C.F.R. § 1002.33. Whether reemployment rights exist may not be determinable

on the first day a Reservist returns to work. An “employer is not permitted to

delay or deny reemployment by demanding documentation that does not exist,”

but an employer may thereafter terminate if documentation that is received

later “shows the employee is not entitled to reemployment. . . .” § 1002.122. 

Actions by the employer after the return that are not related to resolving

reemployment issues can raise Section 4311 discrimination questions.

Having identified differences between the anti-discrimination and the

reemployment rights sections, we briefly address some similarities. A USERRA

treatise has usefully drawn from the statutory language and caselaw how an

5 This approach has been adopted for USERRA claims in several circuits. See

Velazquez-Garcia v. Horizon Lines of P.R., Inc., 473 F.3d 11, 16 (1st Cir. 2007); Maxfield v.

Cintas Corp. No. 2, 427 F.3d 544, 551 (8th Cir. 2005); Coffman v. Chugach Support Servs., Inc.,

411 F.3d 1231, 1238-39 (11th Cir. 2005); Leisek v. Brightwood Corp., 278 F.3d 895, 898-99 (9th

Cir. 2002); Sheehan v. Dep’t of the Navy, 240 F.3d 1009, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Gummo v. Vill.

of Depew, 75 F.3d 98, 106 (2d Cir. 1996). The Fifth Circuit has not spoken on this issue, but

district courts in this circuit have used this analysis. E.g., Snowman v. IMCO Recycling, Inc.,

347 F. Supp. 2d 338, 342 (N.D. Tex. 2004).

9

 Case: 12-41040 Document: 00512412336 Page: 9 Date Filed: 10/17/2013
No. 12-41040

employer’s actions involving an employee returning from military service can

occasionally implicate both parts of the Act:

Section 4311’s protection against discrimination and

retaliation should not be confused with the right to reemployment

under § 4312 of USERRA. It is possible that denying reemployment

to a returning servicemember could, depending on the facts, give

rise to claims under both § 4311 and § 4312. Nonetheless, the two

sections are separate and distinct. Section 4312 entitles a returning

servicemember to reemployment rights and benefits provided by

USERRA if the person meets reemployment-eligibility criteria

enumerated in § 4312. No showing of discriminatory or retaliatory

intent is necessary to establish a violation of § 4312. By contrast,

§ 4311 does not provide for entitlement to USERRA's reemployment

rights and benefits but, rather, protects against denial of

reemployment for a discriminatory or retaliatory reason. Thus, a

discriminatory or retaliatory motive must be shown to establish a

violation of § 4311.

KATHRYN PISCITELLI AND EDWARD STILL, USERRA MANUAL § 7:5 (West 2012)

(footnotes omitted).

Overview completed, we now determine how much of this is before us. 

Most fundamentally, what kind of claim has Bradberry brought? His complaint

did not specify whether his claim arose under the anti-discrimination provision

or the reemployment provision. Instead, he cited the entire USERRA statutory

scheme in support of his claim that the County violated his rights. In his motion

for partial summary judgment, he mentioned the notice provisions of Section

4312 but did not specifically state that the County violated USERRA by failing

to reemploy. In its response, the County implied that Bradberry raised a claim

under the reemployment provision by arguing that Bradberry failed to give

proper advance notice of his Reserve obligations, which is an obligation under

Section 4312. 

In its order denying partial summary judgment, the district court stated

it was unclear which provision of USERRA Bradberry was using. None of the

10

 Case: 12-41040 Document: 00512412336 Page: 10 Date Filed: 10/17/2013
No. 12-41040

parties presented arguments explicitly stating that Sections 4311 and 4312 were

the basis for different claims. The court concluded that Bradberry’s claim was

better understood as one for discrimination under Section 4311. Later, though,

the district court considered Section 4312’s notice requirements. 

The arguments of the parties and the district court’s order primarily

address Section 4311 but with occasional incorporation of elements of Section

4312. Because our review of the district court’s denial of collateral estoppel

requires us to determine what issues are involved in the current case, there is

some disconnect between what is presented to us and what we conclude must be

analyzed in order to determine whether collateral estoppel applies.

II. Collateral Estoppel

We have just discussed the burdens of proof in the claim that confronts us. 

Bradberry argues that he has already met his burden of proving discrimination

due to prior administrative proceedings concerning his discharge. He relies on

the doctrine of collateral estoppel, which prevents the same parties or their

privies from relitigating issues that were litigated and decided in a prior action.6

Bradberry urges the court to treat the ALJ’s findings regarding his termination

as final in this litigation, thus precluding Jefferson County from relitigating the

circumstances surrounding his separation from the Sheriff’s Department.

Collateral estoppel prevents litigation of an issue when: “(1) the identical

issue was previously adjudicated; (2) the issue was actually litigated; and (3) the

previous determination was necessary to the decision.” Pace v. Bogalusa City

Sch. Bd., 403 F.3d 272, 290 (5th Cir. 2005). As the district court stated, some of

our decisions recognize a fourth factor, namely, whether there are any special

6 The related principle of res judicata applies to legal claims, instead of issues, and bars

a suit from being brought again on an event that was the subject of a previous legal cause of

action, fully and finally litigated. The two doctrines frequently overlap. See United States v.

Shanbaum, 10 F.3d 305, 310 (5th Cir. 1994).

11

 Case: 12-41040 Document: 00512412336 Page: 11 Date Filed: 10/17/2013
No. 12-41040

circumstances that make it unfair to apply the doctrine. These equitable

considerations apply only to “offensive collateral estoppel.” See Swate v.

Hartwell (In re Swate), 99 F.3d 1282, 1290 (5th Cir. 1996) (noting that some of

our decisions improperly suggest the equitable factor applies to all collateral

estoppel situations). The Supreme Court has defined the term as follows:

[O]ffensive use of collateral estoppel occurs when the plaintiff seeks

to foreclose the defendant from litigating an issue the defendant has

previously litigated unsuccessfully in an action with another party.

Defensive use occurs when a defendant seeks to prevent a plaintiff

from asserting a claim the plaintiff has previously litigated and lost

against another defendant. 

Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 n.4 (1979). 

Parklane did not categorize all collateral estoppel situations but only those

in which one of the litigants was not a party to the prior proceeding. The Court

was answering “whether a litigant who was not a party to a prior judgment may

nevertheless use that judgment ‘offensively’ to prevent a defendant from

relitigating issues resolved in the earlier proceeding.” Id. at 326. It recognized

that the doctrine of mutuality of parties had traditionally been a bar to the use

of collateral estoppel: “Under this mutuality doctrine, neither party could use

a prior judgment as an estoppel against the other unless both parties were

bound by the judgment.” Id. at 326-27. The Court altered the requirement of

mutuality and permitted a plaintiff not involved in the earlier litigation to estop

a defendant from relitigating an issue on which it earlier lost if no unfairness

resulted. Id. at 331. In the case before us, the collateral estoppel issue arises

from previous proceedings in which both parties were involved. Consequently,

theParklane distinction between offensive and defensive estoppelwhen the prior

proceedings did not involve both current parties does not apply.

In Swate, we acknowledged that “some recent decisions list the fairness

requirement as a general requirement for the application of issue preclusion.” 

12

 Case: 12-41040 Document: 00512412336 Page: 12 Date Filed: 10/17/2013
No. 12-41040

Swate, 99 F.3d at 1290. We noted, though, that the requirement originated in

Parklane. Id. We concluded that if a case involves mutual estoppel, i.e., where

both parties were litigants in the prior action, “an inquiry into special

circumstances is unnecessary.” Id. Therefore, the district court erred in relying

on equitable factors in concluding that collateral estoppel did not apply. 

The district court rejected collateral estoppel. Generally, the issue of

whether to apply collateral estoppel is a question of law, making our review de

novo. United States v. Brackett, 113 F.3d 1396, 1398 (5th Cir. 1997). Our review

is for an abuse of discretion, though, when considering a district court’s

evaluation of whether special circumstances exist to justify offensive collateral

estoppel. Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co., 149 F.3d 387, 391-92 (5th

Cir. 1998). Because offensive collateral estoppel is not involved in this case, our

examination of the district court’s decision is de novo.

The first relevant proceeding was a state administrative hearing. 

Jefferson County argued in the district court that the ALJ’s findings are not

entitled to preclusive effect. It has narrowed its argument on appeal just to say

that these administrative proceedings are not entitled to preclusive effect. 

Whether state agency decisions are usable in federal court “is determined by the

treatment those . . . proceedings would receive in the courts of the state . . . in

which those prior proceedings were held.” Norris v. Hearst Trust, 500 F.3d 454,

460-61 (5th Cir. 2007); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1738. We look to Texas caselaw to

determine whether courts in Texas would treat a proceeding at the State Office

of Administrative Hearings as a judicial proceeding.

Texas law applies collateral estoppel “to administrative agency orders

when the agency is acting in a judicial capacity and resolves disputed issues of

fact properly before it which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to

litigate.” Muckelroy v. Richardson Indep. Sch. Dist., 884 S.W.2d 825, 830 (Tex.

App. – Dallas 1994, writ denied) (quotation marks omitted). Some

13

 Case: 12-41040 Document: 00512412336 Page: 13 Date Filed: 10/17/2013
No. 12-41040

considerations that weigh in favor of determining whether a party had an

“adequate opportunity to litigate” include representation by counsel, witness

testimony, the ability to cross-examine, and application of the rules of evidence. 

See Turnage v. JPI Multifamily, Inc., 64 S.W.3d 614, 620 (Tex. App. – Hous. [1st

Dist.] 2001, no pet.). There has not been any argument that the proceedings

before the ALJ were inadequate in these ways, and we conclude that collateral

estoppel is potentially available.

Having determined the ALJ’s findings can at times be preclusive, we now

consider whether collateral estoppel is appropriate here. We are to consider

whether: (1) the issue at stake in the USERRA claim is identical to the one

involved in the proceeding before the ALJ; (2) the issue was actually litigated

before the ALJ; and (3) the ALJ’s determination was necessary to the decision. 

See Pace, 403 F.3d at 290. Additionally, “both the facts and the legal standard

used to assess them [must be] the same in both proceedings.” Copeland v.

Merrill Lynch & Co., 47 F.3d 1415, 1422 (5th Cir. 1995).

Bradberry argues there are four findings by the ALJ that are precluded

from relitigation. One is that the County discharged him due to a disagreement

about military leave. The other three are that Bradberry was not insubordinate,

was not absent without leave, and did not fail to provide adequate

documentation regarding the reasons for his absence. The ALJ clearly made

fact-findings that rejected the trio of reasons offered by the County for

Bradberry’s termination. Less clear is if the ALJ actually found that Bradberry

was discharged due to a “disagreement over military leave,” or simply ordered,

after finding that the County had not proved its stated grounds, an essentially

meaningless substitute explanation.

In answering this question, we start by repeating that the issue before the

ALJ was whether “the alleged misconduct occurred”; when there is insufficient

evidence to show the claimed misconduct, the ALJ orders the report to be

14

 Case: 12-41040 Document: 00512412336 Page: 14 Date Filed: 10/17/2013
No. 12-41040

changed. TEX.OCC. CODE § 1701.4525(e). The report is significant because each

law enforcement agency to which the officer later applies sees the report. In

addition, the license of a law enforcement officer who is dishonorably discharged

two times is suspended. TEX. OCC. CODE § 1701.4521. Our examination of these

Texas statutes suggests to us that the ALJ needed to decide only whether there

was enough evidence to allow the F-5 Report to reflect a dismissal due to

misconduct. Of course, determining why an officer was really terminated is

certainly relevant when deciding whether the stated reasons are valid. 

The ALJ’s order summarized the evidence about Bradberry’s military

duty, the extension of the period of leave, and the communications between the

County and Bradberry. Immediately following that summary was this

statement: “The best explanation on the F-5 form for the circumstances” of the

termination includes that it was due to “[d]isagreement over military leave.” We

accept that sentence as a fact finding because it resolved a factual issue based

on the available evidence.

For collateral estoppel, though, not only must the earlier proceedings have

actually adjudicated the specific issue, but that determination must have been

necessary to the decision. Pace, 403 F.3d at 290. The parties have not briefed

the intricacies of Texas administrative practice to help us understand whether

the ALJ’s finding about the real reason Bradberry was discharged was a

necessary finding. We will assume in our analysis that it was.

Next, what do these findings mean for USERRA purposes? In considering

collateral estoppel, we break down the issues for a Section 4311 discrimination

claim, then for a Section 4312 reemployment claim, and finally analyze whether

either has identical issues to what the ALJ resolved.

A. Discrimination claim

The burden for a plaintiff in a Section 4311 claim is to prove that military

status was a motivating factor in the employer’s actions. 38 U.S.C. § 4311 (c)(1). 

15

 Case: 12-41040 Document: 00512412336 Page: 15 Date Filed: 10/17/2013
No. 12-41040

The phrase “motivating factor” is not defined in USERRA, but the Supreme

Court explained it in this way:

We therefore hold that if a supervisor performs an act motivated by

antimilitary animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an

adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of

the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable under

USERRA.

Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S.Ct. 1186, 1194 (2011) (footnotes omitted). The

Court was evaluating a situation in which the supervisor with the animus was

not the final decision-maker, thus requiring an analysis of whether the

supervisor’s intent had actually motivated the ultimate employment action. Id.

at 1192-93. That analysis is not needed here.

We apply that understanding here to say that if one reason for the

employer’s actions was Bradberry’s “membership, application for membership,

service, application for service, or obligation for service in the uniformed

services,” then that reason was a motivating factor.

The evidence so far presented in this case or, based on the ALJ’s summary,

in the administrative action, has never shown an animus by the County towards

those in military service. It supports that the County had doubts about the

legitimacy of Bradberry’s extension of military leave. A memorandum was sent

by the County to the Department of Labor when Bradberry’s complaint was

being reviewed. The County set out what it had requested from Bradberry and

how he had not complied. The memorandum states that other County officers

had military obligations, and all other officers had responded acceptably to the

periodic request for verification of their service. The Department of Labor found

that Bradberry “was not forthcoming or cooperative” with the request for

documentation. The ALJ detailed the disagreements the County and Bradberry

had about what was available that could prove he had been ordered to extend his

military service. There also is evidence to support that the County actually

16

 Case: 12-41040 Document: 00512412336 Page: 16 Date Filed: 10/17/2013
No. 12-41040

considered Bradberry to be absent without leave and insubordinate. 

We apply these findings to the requirements of a Section 4311

discrimination claim. Under that statute, it matters whether the County was

motivated by Bradberry’s military status or only motivated by what it thought

were insubordination and a dishonest assertion that his military duty had been

extended. Except as specifically provided otherwise, USERRA does not exempt

those in the military from complying with the usual rules of behavior in the

workplace or being subject to the usual discipline. That discipline can include

discharge that will not be affected, as Bradberry’s was not, by an ALJ’s later

determination that the stated grounds were not proven. There has been no

effort in this case to show that Bradberry was treated differently than other

employees who, after absences for one reason or another, did not justify to the

County’s satisfaction their claimed basis for missing work. 

We conclude that a finding that Bradberry was discharged due to a

disagreement about military service is not the equivalent of a finding that the

County was motivated by his military status to discharge him. The district court

did not err in refusing to apply collateral estoppel to the ALJ’s finding. The

issue of motivation remains an unresolved fact question.

B. Violation of Reemployment Rights 

The ALJ’s finding that Bradberry had been discharged due to a

disagreement about military leave presents the need to consider Section 4312 as

well. After Bradberry couched much of his argument in terms of discrimination

under Section 4311, the County responded in terms of Bradberry’s being absent

without leave and failure to document, which raise facts relevant to Section 4312

reemployment. The County used those reasons to explain why he would have

been terminated anyway – a defense to Section 4311 discrimination. 

Though we have held that the finding of a disagreement about military

leave is not sufficient to prove motivation under Section 4311, a discriminatory

17

 Case: 12-41040 Document: 00512412336 Page: 17 Date Filed: 10/17/2013
No. 12-41040

intent does not need to be shown under Section 4312. 20 C.F.R. § 1002.33. If

Bradberry complied with his USERRA obligations in order to be reemployed

after two weeks of military duty, then the possibility that the County had no

discriminatory intent would not matter.

We do not analyze the possible collateral estoppel effects of the ALJ’s

decision on a Section 4312 claim because no one has briefed it. We note, though,

that a requirement for collateral estoppel is that the same legal standard be used

in both proceedings to assess the facts on any issue considered to be identical. 

Pace, 403 F.3d at 290. The legal standards under USERRA include that the

servicemember give “notice as far in advance as is reasonable under the

circumstances,” which usually would be at least 30 days. 20 C.F.R. § 1002.85(d);

see also 38 U.S.C. § 4312(a)(1). Military necessity and impossibility may excuse

the notice. 38 U.S.C. § 4312(b). Documentation depends on its availability and

the length of service. § 4312(f). These USERRA standards were not discussed

by the ALJ nor briefed by the parties, and no one has tried to compare them to

standards the ALJ may have used in making these three findings. 

C. Affirmative Defenses

We address one final disputed point, namely, the degree to which

affirmative defenses are properly in this case. The district court discussed

affirmative defenses under USERRA. The defenses create factual issues beyond

those presented to the ALJ regarding the F-5 Report. The district court stated

that other issues could include whether the military service was a motivating

factor and whether he would have been terminated anyway. The district court

called Bradberry’s possibly deficient advance notice an affirmative defense under

Section 4311, but it is actually the plaintiff’s burden under Section 4312. 

Finally, an issue could be that circumstances had changed so as to make

reemployment unreasonable (a Section 4312 affirmative defense).

Initially, the County raised no affirmative defenses in its answer. A week

18

 Case: 12-41040 Document: 00512412336 Page: 18 Date Filed: 10/17/2013
No. 12-41040

after Bradberry mentioned their absence in a footnote to his summary judgment

brief, the County filed an amended answer. The defenses it raised were these:

Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff because Defendant would have

terminated Plaintiff in the absence of Plaintiff’s military status.

Specifically, Defendant would have terminated Plaintiff for his

insubordination and failure to truthfully answer questions or

provide documentation and relevant statements to the Sheriff or

any supervisor in a departmental investigation when so ordered.

The County did not raise faulty notice or changed circumstances in this amended

answer. Instead, these defenses were raised for the first time in the County’s

response to Bradberry’s motion for partial summary judgment. In his reply to

the County’s response, Bradberry made no objection to the additional defenses

raised by the County. 

Generally, affirmative defenses must be presented in the answer. FED. R.

CIV. P. 8(c)(1). Even so, if the defense is later presented “in a manner that does

not result in unfair surprise[,] . . . technical failure to comply precisely with Rule

8(c) is not fatal.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Mackay, 695 F.2d 854, 855-56 (5th Cir.

1983). The defense may be considered if it was raised “at a pragmatically

sufficient time, and [the plaintiff] was not prejudiced in its ability to respond.” 

Id. at 856. The district court, in denying collateral estoppel, several times

referred to unpled affirmative defenses, without acknowledging the pleading

defect. The County raised its affirmative defenses before the district court and

Bradberry had the opportunity to respond to them. Bradberry failed to object

in his response. Thus, he has waived any objection to consideration of these

additional reasons offered by the County for his termination.

The County’s reply to Bradberry’s motion raised what it labeled as

“defenses” of deficient advance notice, failure to return promptly to civilian work

following the completion of Army Reserve duty, and absence of proof that the

military had determined there was a military necessity to extending his orders. 

19

 Case: 12-41040 Document: 00512412336 Page: 19 Date Filed: 10/17/2013
No. 12-41040

Those are not affirmative defenses but are parts of Bradberry’s case. It also

argued the Section 4311 affirmative defense that he would have been terminated

anyway, and the Section 4312 affirmative defense of changed circumstances that

made Bradberry’s reemployment unreasonable. Bradberry’s reply argued that

“failure to give preclusive effect to the ALJ’s findings of fact will allow Defendant

to advance certain affirmative defenses . . . even though it failed to prove them

by a preponderance of the evidence in the administrative proceeding.” Nothing

in the reply brief argued that there was a defect in pleading.

By the time the summary judgment motion was fully briefed, several

defenses had been injected into the case. Bradberry had the opportunity to

respond and made no objection. The district judge considered the defenses. We

conclude that the technical failure to plead all the currently presented defenses

does not prevent consideration of them.

III. Preemption

Jefferson County argues that USERRA preemptsSections 613.001-613.023

of the Texas Government Code. Chapter 613 is similar to USERRA in that it

provides for the reemployment of public employees who are returning from

military service. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 613.002. If a state or local entity fails to

reemploy an individual following discharge from military service, a court may

require the official to comply with the statute. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 613.021. The

County argues Congress intended a uniform set of protections to be available to

returning veterans and expressly forbade modification of these protections by

state law.7

7 USERRA specifically describes its intended relation to other laws, including

Congress’s express intent not to supersede any state law that establishes a right or benefit in

addition to a right provided under USERRA. See 38 U.S.C. § 4302(a). The section also notes

the intent to supersede any state law that reduces or eliminates any right provided under

USERRA, “including the establishment of additional prerequisites to the exercise of any such

20

 Case: 12-41040 Document: 00512412336 Page: 20 Date Filed: 10/17/2013
No. 12-41040

The County’s brief suggests that Chapter 613 is preempted by USERRA

because the statutes have incompatible notice requirements. The district court

declined to address preemption at the summary judgment stage. Although the

issue was certified for interlocutory appeal, it is unclear at this stage whether

it will ever be necessary to decide whether preemption applies. A resolution of

this constitutional issue on interlocutory appeal is premature.

IV. Supplemental Jurisdiction

As discussed above, Chapter 613 of the Texas Government Code codifies

a policy of accommodating the public employees of the State and its political

subdivisions who serve in the military. The district court noted that there are

“only a handful of Texas Attorney General Opinions addressing the provisions

of Chapter 613,” and expressed concern over the lack of guidance regarding the

exercise of subject-matter jurisdiction over such a claim. The court itself raised

a jurisdictional issue, which was whether a federal court “can exercise

jurisdiction over such a cause of action in light of the specific language of Section

613.021 requiring that a petition to enforce reemployment rights be filed in state

district court.” The statute that concerned the district court provides:

If a public official fails to comply with a provision of [Chapter 613],

a district court in the district in which the individual is a public

official may require the public official to comply with the provision

on the filing of a motion, petition, or other appropriate pleading by

an individual entitled to a benefit under the provision.

TEX. GOV’T CODE § 613.021. The district court did not rule on the jurisdictional

question, but it is one of the issues certified for our review. As we will discuss,

we see this provision as one establishing venue in state court, and it has no

effect on the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in federal court.

right or the receipt of any such benefit.” 38 U.S.C. § 4302(b). 

21

 Case: 12-41040 Document: 00512412336 Page: 21 Date Filed: 10/17/2013
No. 12-41040

The relevant statute says “a [state] district court in the district in which

the individual is a public official” is the proper court to hear the claim. Id. 

Jefferson County argues that only a state district court in the district where the

service member was denied reemployment may grant relief. Only one case is

cited for the proposition that a federal court cannot exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over state law claims when a state statute identifies the appropriate

state court for those claims. See City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522

U.S. 156 (1997). The Court did not address the issue for which it is now cited. 

Instead, it held that once original jurisdiction exists in federal district court over

some claims, the court may resolve “all other claims that are so related to claims

in the action . . . that they form part of the same case or controversy.” Id. at 165

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)). The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is

discretionary, with statutory factors to guide the exercise of the discretion. 28

U.S.C. § 1367(c). Abstention doctrine may also compel a district court to refrain

from considering state law issues. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. at 174. There

has been no suggestion that abstention applies here.

Our question is far simpler: does a statute that identifies which state court

is to hear a certain case prevent a federal district court – which of course is not

the identified state court – from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the

claim? There is nothing extraordinary about a state statute limiting which court

can hear a claim. Whatever Section 613.021 means for state court lawsuits, it is

no barrier to the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in federal court. 

AFFIRMED.

Judge Haynes concurs in the judgment only.

22

 Case: 12-41040 Document: 00512412336 Page: 22 Date Filed: 10/17/2013