## 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. 10

- 1405 E R I C F LY NN G RO SS, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. PPG I NDUSTRIE S, I NC ., D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 07- CV-982

—J. P. S tadtmuel ler , Judge .
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 16, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 7, 2011

Befo re C UDAH Y, R OV NER, an d E VANS, C ircu it Judges . R OV NER, C ircu it Judge. E r i c F l y n n G r o s s s ue d hi s e mp loyer, PP G In d us tries, Inc . , all eging th at PP G ’s h an d lin g of h is m ilita ry d ep loy m en t vio lat ed th e U n if or m ed Se rv i ces Em plo ym ent a nd Reem ploym ent Act ( “U SERRA ”) , 38 U
. S. C. §§ 4301

- 35
. A s r el evanther e, Gross al l ege d tha t P P G un l aw fully c al cul ate d his pay w h ile he w as d ep loyed an d refused to rectify i ts error. Gross and PPG fi l ed cr oss - m oti ons f orsum m ar y j ud g-2 N o. 10

- 1405

Gros s was ag ai n de pl oye d t o I ra q fro m 20 07t o 2 00 8, but 1 tha t d ep loy m en t is no t relev an t to his ap p eal. m ent, and the dist ri ct c ourtgr anted P P G’s m oti on. Gros s a p p e a l s , a n d w e a ffi r m.

I. Fol l owing si x ye ar s ofact i ve m i l i tar y duty as an enl i s t e d Ma r i ne , Gr o s s b e g a n wo r k i ngf o r P PG Ind us t r i es i n 199 7. A t th e ti m e o far gum ent, Gros s co nti nued to w or k a t P P G ’s O a k C r e e k, W isc on sin fac ility , w h ich is one ofm any PPG f aci l i ti es t hro ughout the U ni ted S ta te s pro vi di ng“ co at i ng s an d s pec i al typr o duct s an d se r vi ces” to c o ns truct i o n, c o ns um er, i ndus tr i al, a nd tr anspor tat i on m ar ket s. Gros s i s e m plo yed atPPG as a “ GeneralInd ustr i alTechni ci an. ” Gro ss has co nt inued to serve i n the U ni ted S tat es M ar i ne Cor ps Reser ve whi l e e mpl o y e d a tP PG
. Gross was deplo yed to act i ve m i l i tar y s er vice i n I ra q fro m J une 200 4 unti lM ay 2005
. Bef or e hi s depl oym ent, 1 Gross m et w i th hum an r eso u rces a dvis orKri stiPri ce, who pr o vi ded hi m wi tha do cumento ut l i ni ngthe b e ne fi t s P PG wo ul d p r o v i de t o Gr o s s wh i l e de pl o y e d. Befo r e 20 01 , PP G pr o vi ded empl o y ee s se r vingi n the N ati onalGuard orr es er ves up to f our w eek s perye ar ofs u pp l em entalpay equal to the differ ence between th e em p loyee’s PPG base salary an d his or he r m il itary base pay. A fterthe Se ptem ber11 , 2 00 1 ter ro ri st att acks , P P G a d op te d its “A tt ac k on A m er ica ” p olic y a p p lica b leN o. 10

- 1405 3 to m i l i tar y l eave . This pol i cy i ncre ase d th e d i ffer enti al pay av ai l abl e t o em plo yee s o n m i l i tar y l eave fro m f our w eek s t o 180 days. PPG’ s m i l i tar y l eave pol i cy al so gu ar antee d that a sa l ar i ed em plo yee l i ke Gross wo ul d b e e nt i t l e d t o r e t urn t o h i s j o b f o l l o w i ng a m i l i ta r y l ea ve o fabs en ce . F r o m 2 00 1 o nwar d, PP G m aintained thi s di ffer enti alp ay pol i cy re l ati vel y unchanged except that i t incre ase d the av ai l abi l i ty ofdi ffer enti al pay pro gr ess i vel y fro m 18 0 ca l en d ar d ays i n 200 1 up to 720 cal endar days i n 200 4. I n parti cul ar, the 2004 ver si on of the pol i cy i n effec t du ring Gro ss’ s l eave pro vi ded that : A sa l ar i ed em plo yee wh o i s a cti vel y a t wo rk( not on l ay o ff ) a nd i s ca l l ed to a ct i ve duty a s a r es ul t of th e ter ro ri sts ’ act i vi ti es s h a l l b e p a i d b y t h e Co mp any an am ount eq ual to the di

ff eren ce b et w ee n his or herm onthly s al ary f orthe i rregula r work s ch e dul ean d theamountof hi s or h e r mon t h l y mi l i t a ry b a s e p a y, ex c l u s i v eof a llo w a nc es ( adj usted m onthl y base sal ar y) f ora tot alo f 720 cal end ardays

. P a y me n tw i l lb e ma d e o n t h e s a me fre q u en c y a s n or m ally an d via d ire c t d ep os it on ly. P P G Ind u s. In c ., M il it ary Leave’s [s ic]of Abs ence

—Att ac k on Am e rica Revi sed, (A p r. 15 , 200 4) (it alic ize d em p h as is ad d ed ). Fr om 20 01 th ro u gh M ay 20 07, PP G em p loy ed th e fo ll owing b as i c f or m ula to cal cul ate the pay di ffer enti al for em p loyees taking a leave of abs en ce for m il itary se rvi ce: PPG com pared an em plo yee ’ s r egul arm onthly base s ala ryag ai nst the m i l i tar y paythatem plo yee r ec ei ve d ( ex cl usi ve o fa l l o wanc es , s ucha s ho us i ng ) , a nd4 N o. 10

- 1405 th en i ssu ed a pay rollc h e c k i n the am ou nt of th e d if

f er e nc e o nc e i t r e c e i v e d the e mpl o y e e ’ s mi l i t a r y pay vouch e r s . F o r e xa mpl e , i fa s a l a r i e d P PG e mpl o y ee earn ed $4,000 per m ont h an d rec e ived $2,000 of m il itary pay m onthl y, the em p loy ee w oul d rec ei ve a chec k fro m PPG f or$ 2,0 00 per m onth whil e o n m i l i tar y l eave so that h i s s ala ry w ou ld be th e s am e a s itw ou ld h av e b ee n if he had w or ked atPPG. U nd er thi s for m ula, the preci se num bero fPPG w or kdays i n any gi ven m onth was i rrel evant. W he n Gr o ss c o m pl et ed hi s depl oym enti n 2 00 5, he re turned t o h i s pos i ti on a t PPG. A t that t i m e, he b ega n q u es tio n in g t h e fo rm u la P P G h ad u s e d to ca lcu lat e h is differ enti alpay w hi l e he w as deploy ed. Gros s s ubm i tte d a com p lai nt abou t the pa y calcu lation throu gh PP G ’s “RESOL VE ” Em plo yee Dis pu te Resol uti on Pro cess . Gros s com p lai ne d that b e c a u s e he w as req uired to w ork extra days duri ng hi s depl oym en t (weeke nd s a nd hol i days th at h e w o u ld n oth av e w or ke d atP P G ), PP G sh ou ld have cal cul ate d a dai l y m i l i tar y payr ate and then dedu cted m i l i tar y pay o n ly f ordays i n a g i ven m onth that he would have worke d at PPG. Thi s for m u la i s ba sed on the 30

- day m ont h t h e D epart m ent o fDefense uses to pay m em ber s o fthe m i l i tar y r ega rdl ess o fthe actual n u m b e r o f d a y s i n a n y g i v e n m o n th

. U s i n g th e s a me fi g ure s as abo ve , i t woul d b e ca l cul at ed us i ngthe f ol l owing f or m ula : ( 1) $2 , 000 m ont h l y m i l i tar y pay divi ded by30 days equal s a $66 p erd ay m i l i tar y payr ate ; ( 2) $6 6 perdi em m i l i tar y paym ult i pli ed by the num ber of PPG m onthl y workdays

— or dinar i l y 2 1

— equal s $ 1386 ; ( 3) thi s amoun t i s th ensubtr ac te d fr o m the PP GN o. 10

- 1405 5

m onthl y b ase pay

— $4, 000

— yie lding $261 4 in differ enti al p ay , as op p os ed to th e $2,0 00 p aid u n d er P P G ’s s i m p le base pay l ess m i l i tar y paycal cul ati on. PPG d ecl i ned to revisit its form ula for calcu lating m il itary p a y f o r Gross ’s 2004

- 05 deploy m ent. I t di d, how eve r, adopt the cal c u l at i o n ur g e d b y Gr o s s ( w hi ch w a s the c a l c ul a t i o n a l r e a dy us ed f or sho rt term m i l i tar y l eave s o f a b sence) f or m i l i tar y depl oym ents go i ng f or w ar d, effecti ve M ay 1, 2007
. Thus, Gros s r ecei ved di ffer enti alpay f ora 20 07- 08 de pl o y men ta c c o r di ngt o the f o r mul a h e wa nt e d a ppli ed re tr oac ti vel y t o hi s 2 004- 05 deploy m ent. G ro ss su ed P P G , alleg in g t h at its ca lcu lat ion of h is d iffer en tia l p ay d u rin g h is 2 00 4-0 5 d ep loy m en t a s w ell as an all eged f ail ure to retrai n h im u p o n h is r etu rn v i o l a t e d p r o v i s i o n s o fU S E R R A a d d r e s s i n gth e r e e mp loy m ent r i ghts ofi nd i vi du al s who ser ve i n the m ilit ar y. See 38 U
. S. C. §§ 4312

- 13, 43 16, 43 18. H e a l so cl ai m ed that PPG vi ol ate d a W i sco n sin state st atute
. The parti es fi l ed cr oss - m oti ons f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent. Gr o ss m ov e d fo r s ummar y j ud g men tu nd e r 3 8 U. S
. C. § 4 311, an a nti

- disc ri m i nati on pro vi si on that pr ohibi ts em plo yer s fro m denyi ng “a ny be nefi t o fem plo ym ent” to ind ivid u a l s w h o s er ve in t h e a rm ed se rv ice s. A lthough Gro ss f ai l ed to m enti on § 43 11 i n hi s co m pla i nt, th e di st r i ctc o ur t no ne th el es s den i ed hi s m otion o n the m er i ts afte r concl ud i ng tha t di ffer enti alpay i s no t a be ne fi t o fe m pl o y m en t unde rUSE R RA. Be ca us e PPG had no obl i gat i on to offer differ enti al pay, it l i kewis e had no ob l i gat i on t o cal cul ate su ch pay in the m anner m ostbene fi ci alto G ro ss. The di str i ct c ourtal so gr anted su m m a r y j u d gm en t t o P P G on th e re m ain in g c laim s in6 N o. 10

- 1405 Gross ’ s co m pla i nt. The court note d G ro ss’ s f ai l ure to cite any c as e l aw i n s uppo r t o fhi s cl ai m s th atPP G vio lat ed th e o th er p ro vis ion s o f U SE R R A liste d in h is com pla i nt. I t a l so rej ecte d G ross ’ s a tte m pt to i nser t a c lai m thatPP G had retali ated against h im after dete rm in in g t h at G ro ss h ad n ev er m en tio n ed ret ali a t i o n in h i s c om p lain t. L ike w ise , th e c ou rtrejec te d an y c laim base d on Gros s’ s a l l ega ti on that PPG had f ai l ed to re tr ai n hi m because Gross conceded that h e w as pr o m ptly r eins ta te d t o hi s f o r m erpo si ti on whe n h e re turned fro m hi s depl oym ent. Final l y, the cour t g ra nted s ummar y j ud g men ti n f a v o r o fP PG o n Gr o s s ’ s s t a tel aw c l ai m . Not i ngtha t Gr o ss ’ s co m p lai nt c i te d a no nex istent W i sco nsi n sta tute, the dist ri ct c ourtnonethel ess ente rt ai ned the pos sib i l i ty that Gross m eant to ci te W isc on sin ’s m i n i-U SE R R A p ro vis ion
. See W i s. S tat
. § 3 21. 65. That s tatute, how eve r, di d not a ssi st Gross because the onl y por ti on o fi t a pp licabl e t o pri vate sect orem plo yer s co ver ed “st ate act i ve du ty” or“a cti ve d u ty in t h e n at ion al g u ar d ,” w h i c h w ou ld n otap p ly to Gr o ss ’ s se r vi ce f o r the M ar i ne C orp s i n I r aq . § 3 21. 65( 1) ( a)
. Gros s a pp eal s.

II. W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s d ec isi on o n the parti es’ cr o ss - m o ti o ns fors um m ar y j udg m en t de no vo , c o nstr uingal lf acts and i nfe re nces i n f avo r ofthe party ag ain st w h om su m m ar y j u d gm en t w a s g ra n te d

. E.g
. , Se l l e rs v. Zur i ch Am
. Ins . Co. , 627 F.3d 627, 631 (7th C ir. 201 0)
. S um m ar y j udg m en t i s appr o pr i at e when th er e areN o. 10

- 1405 7

“Uni f or m ed s er vi c es ” i s defi ne d as “the Arm ed For c es , the 2 A rm y N ati o n al G uard and the Air N ati onal Gu ard w hen en gage d i n a c tiv e duty f or t ra i ni ng, i nac t i ve duty t ra i ni ng, or ful l

- t i m e N ational Guar d duty , the c om m i s s i one d co rps of the Publ i c Heal th S er vi c e, an d any othe r c at eg or y ofpe rs ons (co n tin u ed ...) no g enui ne i ssues o fm at eri alf act and j ud gm ent a s a m at te r of law is w a r r a n t e d for th e m ov in g p ar ty
. See, e . g. , Fe d . R. C iv. P . 56(a ); A n d ers on v. Libe rty Lobby Inc. , 47 7 U
. S. 24 2, 25 5 ( 1986 )
. Gros s co nti nues to ar gue o n appeal th atP PG ’ s ha ndl i ngo fhi s 20 05

- 06 mil i ta r y de pl o y m en t vi ol ate d U SERRA
. In p ar ti cul ar, he insi sts thatthe w ay P P G c a l c ul a t e d h i s d i ffe r e n t i a lp a y d e n i e d h i m a “benefi t of em plo ym ent” prot ecte d b y U SERRA an d al so am ounted to unl aw ful disc ri m i nati on a nd reta l i ati on a g a i n s th i m. We b e g i n w i th h i s cl a i m th a tth e p a y c a l c u l a t i o n e mplo yed byPPG vi ol ate d U SERRA
. Enacted i n 199 4, US E R R A i s th e mo s tr e c e n ti t e r a t i o n ofa se r i e s o fl a ws dati ng ba ck to 1940 i n tended to prot ect the e m plo ym ent a nd r eem plo ym ent r i ghts ofm em ber s a nd f or m er m em ber s o fthe ar m ed force s. The st ate d goa l s o f USERRA ar e ( 1) “ to e nc ou rage no nc ar ee r s er vi ce i n the uni f o r m ed se r vi ce s bye l i m i na ting o r min i m i zingthe di sa dva nt ag es t o c ivi li anc ar ee r s an d e m pl o y m en t w hi ch can r esul t fro m such s er vi ce”; (2) “t o m i ni m i ze the dis rupti on” to the s er vi ce m em berand others “by provi ding f orthe prom p t re em plo ym ent” ofsuch ser vi ce m em ber s upon the i r re turn; and ( 3) “t o p ro h ibitd isc rim in at ion ag ain st p er so n s b ec au se of th eir service in the un iform ed services.” 38 U
. S. C
. § 4301(a). 28 N o. 10

- 1405

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 designate d b y the Pre si dent in t im e ofw ar or nati onal em erg en cy .” 3 8 U .S.C . § 4 3 0 3 (1 6 ). Co ng r e s s e mpha s i z e d whe n e na c t i ng US ER RA that t o t he e x t e n t i t i s c o n s i s t e n t wi th US E R R A, th e “ l a r g e b o dy ofcas e l aw that h ad devel oped” und erthe predeces sor st at u te s t o U SE R R A “re m ain ed in fu l l fo rc e a n d effe c t.” 20 C.F
. R. § 1002
. 2. As r el ev an t he r e, t wo r el at ed pr o vi si o ns o fUSERRA gov er n ser vi ce m em ber s’ em plo ym ent r i ghts. The fi rs t, 38 U
. S. C. § 4 316, se ts out the r i ghts a p p li cabl e whil e a m i l i tar y e m plo yee i s a w ay fro m w or k fulfi l l i ng se rv i ce o b l i g a t i o n s . S e c t i o n 4 3 1 6 e s t a b l i s h e s th a ts e r v i c e me mber s absent fro m em plo ym ent a re “deem ed to be o n furl ough o r l eave o fabs ence” and that they ar e “ enti tl ed to such other ri ghts and benefi ts not deter m in ed by sen i o r i t y a s a r e g e ne r a l l y pr o v i de d b y the e mpl o y e r” to oth er sim il arly situat ed em p loyees “w ho are o n furl ough o r l eave o f a bsence under a contr act, ag re em ent, pol i cy, prac ti ce, o r pla n i n effect at the c om m encem en t of su ch serv ic e[. ]” 38 U
. S. C
. § 4316(b)(1)( A )- (B). The seco nd , 38 U
. S. C. § 4311 , i s an an ti-d i scr i m i nati on p ro vis ion . I t p ro vid es in p er tin en t p ar t t h a t an ind ivid u al w ith “a n ob l i ga tio nto p er for m se rv ice in a u n if or m ed ser vi ce s hal lnotbe denie d . . . a n y b enefi t o f em p loym en t by an em p loyer on th e basis” of his m em bersh ip in or obl igat ion s arisi ng from the u niform ed servi ce . 3 8 U. S
. C. § 43 11
. A “b en efi t o fe m pl o y m en t” i n tur n, i s defined as “ an y a dva nt ag e, pr o fi t, pr i vi l eg e, g ain,N o. 10

- 1405 9 statu s, acc ou nt, or interest ( oth er than w ages or salary f o r wo r k p e r f o r me d ) th a t a c c r u e s b y r e a s o n o f a n e mplo ym ent c ontr act o r agr eem ent o r an em plo yerpol i cy, p lan, or prac tice[. ]” 38 U
. S. C
. § 4303(2). The dis tr i ct c ourtco nsi dered Gro ss’ s cl ai m under § 4311
. Gr o ss c l ai m s th atthe di st r i ct co ur t er r o ne o us l y c o nc lu d ed th at § 43 11 d oe s n oto b l i ga te P P G to p ro vid e h im w i th di ffer enti alpay to supp l em ent h i s m i l i tar y s al ar y. S pec i fi ca l l y, he c l ai m s th athi s i nt er pr et at i o n o fPPG ’s differ enti al pay pol i cy i s a “benefi t of em plo ym ent” prot ecte d b y USER RA
. Gros s’ s a rgum ent f al l s s hor t o n seve ra ll eve l s. Fir st, a s t h e d ist ric t c ou rtrec og n ize d , w e re c en tly consi dered and r ej ecte d a cl ai m t h at § 43 11 re quir es em plo yer s t o provi de its m i l i tar y e m plo yee s be nefi ts, l i ke differ enti alpay, that exceed those bene fi ts offer ed to i ts o th ere m pl o y ee s g en er al l y . In C re w s v . City of M t. Ver non , a ci ty pol i ce o ffi cerwh o w as al so a m em bero f the A rm y Nati onalGuard sued the ci ty and tw o pol i ce ch i ef s, c l ai m i ngtha t th e defen dan ts v i o l at ed USERRA byrefu singt o e xt en d c er ta i n pr efer en ti als ch edu l i ng ben efi ts to him

. 567 F. 3d 860 ( 7th C ir. 2009 ). T h e G u ard o bl i g at i o ns o fthe pl aint i ffi n C rew s re quir ed hi m to at te n d w ee ke n d “d rill” e x e r c ise s m on th ly. Id. at 862. O n those occasions officers cou ld tu rn in their m ili tary pa y i n e xc ha ng e f or thei r r e g ul a r Ci t y p a y t o a v o i d a p ay sh or tfa ll. T h os e o ffi c e r s a lso h ad th e o p tio n of allocating th eir p erson al days ( vac ation, com p en satory tim e off, etc. ) to days m i sse d fo r dri l lso as to co l l ect b ot h C ity p ay an d m ilit a r y p ay for th os e d ay s. Id. A d d i-10 N o. 10

- 1405 ti onal l y, the pol i ce depar tm ent a l l owed Guard em plo yee s to re schedule weekend w or k s hi fts w hen theycon fli cted wi th d r i l lo b l i g a t i o n s . T h i s p o l i c y a l l o we d G u a r d e mp loy ee s t o c olle c t m ilita ry p ay for a tt en d in g d rill in a d d itio n to th eir fu ll w ee k’s p ay from th e C ity
. Id. at 863. The De par tmentl at err es cinde d t he pol i cyo fa l l o wi ng Gu ar d em plo yee s ( w ho had bec om e m or e num er ous o n the for ce) to r eschedul e th eir weekend w or k s hi fts on dr i l lwee k en ds. Thu s th e pl aint i ff, Crew s, co ul d no l o ng err ec ei ve a ful lwee k ’ s payfr o m the Ci tyi fhe m iss ed a w ee ke n d w or k s h ift for d rill u n les s h e u se d h is fin ite p aid tim e o ff d ay s. Id. W e r ej ecte d Crew s’s asserti on that the sc hedu l i ng be nefi t pr ev i ousl y e xtended by the pol i ce depar tm ent w as a “b enefi t o fem plo ym ent” prot ecte d by § 43 11. In partic u lar, we concl ud ed that § 4 311, as an a nti

- disc ri m i nati on pro vi si on, pro tect ed onl y those bene fi ts ofem plo ym ent pr ovi ded to both m ilita ry a n d n on -m ilita ry e m p loy ee s a like

. Id. at 866. Thus, the Depart m ent’ s deci si on t o re sci nd the prefer enti al s c h e d u l i n gb e n e fi tp r e v i o u s l y o ffe r e d t o i t s G u a r d e mp loy ee s d id n otru n afo u l of § 43 11
. Id. at 866- 67. Gross pro poses thatwe ove rr ule C rew s to the e xt en t that i t h old s that a bene fi t o fem plo ym ent under § 4 311 m us t be eq ua ll y available to m il itary and non -m il itary em plo yee s. In supp or t o fhi s cl ai m , Gros s s ug ge st s that our re ading of “any benefi t of em plo ym ent” f ails to ac c ou n t fo r th e fa c t t h at as an an ti- d i s c r im in at ion p ro visi on, § 4311 pro tect s a br oadercat ego ryo fr i ghts than th ose ou tli ne d i n § 431 6 ap p li cab le to service m em bers o n l ea ve . In Cr e ws , we fi rst con s id e r ed the p lai nt iff’ sN o. 10

- 1405 11 cl ai m under § 4316 and c onclud ed that because subse ctio n (b) ( 1 ) req u ire s “ ‘on ly eq u al b u t n otp re fer en tia l’ ” tr ea tmentf o r m il i ta r y e m pl o y ee s th e po l i ce de par tment had no obl i gat i on und er § 4316 to aff ord p re fer enti al sc h ed u lin g b en efit s t o its G u ar d em p loy ee s. Cr e ws , 56 7 F. 3d at 865 ( quotin g R ogers v. City of San A ntonio , 39 2 F.3 d 75 8, 76 9 (5 th C ir. 20 04 )); see also M o nro e v. Sta nd a rd O i l Co. , 452 U
. S. 549, 561 (1981 ) (holdin g tha t U S E R R A ’s predeces sorst atute di d not re quir e e m plo yer s t o provi de speci albene fi ts unavai l abl e t o othe r em plo yee s to m il itary reservists). Des pi te Gr o ss ’ s i ns i st en ce th at th e l an g ua g e guar an teeing “a ny ben efi t of em p loym en t” u nd er § 4311 offers bro ader prot ecti on than § 4 316, we expl i ci tl y c onsi dered an d r ej ec te d s ucha c l ai m i n Cr e ws . Inde ed, a fte r c o nsi deri ng the pl ai nti ff’ s cl ai m under § 4316, w e conti nued to an alyze whether i t co uld s ucceed under § 4311
. W e a c k no wl e dg e d tha t no thing i n the t e xt o f § 4 3 1 1 o r § 4 303( 2) ( de fi ni ng “b enefi t o fem plo ym ent”) l i m i ted “benefi t o fem plo ym ent” to thos e be nefi ts ex te n ded to b ot h m ilita ry an d n on - m ilita ry em p loy ee s a like

. Cr e ws , 567 F. 3d at 866. N onethel ess , we ult i m at el y c oncl ud ed th at su ch an interp retation m ad e sen se in li gh t of § 4311 ’s anti

- disc ri m i nati on purpose , wh i ch se rv es to prot ect mi l i t a r y e mpl o y e e s fro m di s c r i mi na t i o n, n o tp r o v i de th em w ith p re fer en ti a l t r e at m en t. Id. at 86 7; see also San do va l v. Ci ty of

Chi cago , 560 F.3d 703 , 704-05 (7th C ir. 2009 ) ( “[ Se cti on] 43 11 is an anti disc ri m i nati on r ule ” th atpr o vide s m i l i ta r y e m pl o y ee s “a n e qua l

- tr ea tment n or m .”); M il le r v. C ity of Indianap olis , 281 F. 3d 648, 65 0 ( 7th C ir. 2002 ) ( “U SERRA prohibi ts disc ri m i nati on[
. ]
. . . I t12 N o. 10

- 1405 does not express l y r equi re pai d m i lita ry l eave . ”)
. Thus, w e hav e co nsi dered and r ej ecte d the ar gum ents Gross advances i n fav or o f a m or e g ener ous r eadi ng o f§ 4311 , an d h e ad d s no th in g ne w to th e d isc u ss ion th at w o u ld war r an t o ve r tu r ni ngo urde ci si o n in Cr e ws . M or e i m port antl y, Gros s’ s co ntenti ons ar e l ar ge ly ac ad em i c, bec ause eve n i fwe accepte d the inter preta
ti on o f§ 4311 he ur ges , he woul d sti l lnotbe enti tl ed to r e l i e f

. As i s p a tent l y c l e a r fr o m t he f a c t s , P PG did ext e nddi ffer enti alpay to Gross
. I t is und i sputed that PPG ’ s ca l cul ati on o fdi ffer enti alpay guar antee d that he r e c e i v e d th e e q u i v a l e n to fh i s fu l lP P G s a l a r y d u r i ng hi s 20 04

- 05 mil ita r y de pl o y m en t. Hi s en ti r e ar g um en t r e s t s o n the p r e mi s e tha tP PG was o b l i g a t e d t o p r o v i de not onl y di ffer enti alpay, but differ enti alpay cal cul ate d acco rdi ng to Gros s’s speci fi cati ons. Gros s s eem s t o be cl ai m i ng tha t the A tta ck on Am er i ca pol i cy i n effect d u rin g his d ep loy m en t am ou n te d to an en for c ea b le co nt ractb etwee n P PG a nd hi m f o r di ffer en ti alpa y c al cul ate d accor ding to the perdi em m odelhe pr opose s. Gross atte m pts to sho re up his cl ai m with a n unp ubli sh ed opinion from the Sixth C ircu it w he re the cou rt u p h e l d a da ma g e s a wa r d u n d e rU S E R R A t o a n e mploye e se r vingi n the Army R es er ve who r ec ei ve d no differ enti alpay f ora si x-m onth absence f ora cti ve du ty m i l i tar y s er vi ce. Ko ehl er v. PepsiA m er icas, Inc. , 2 6 8 F e d. A pp x. 39 6 ( 6th Ci r. M ar ch 6, 2 00 8). Bu t Ko ehlerdoes not he l p Gr o ss . The pl aint i ffi n K o ehler, an e m plo yee o f Pepsi, r ecei ved no pay fr om the com pany w hi l e o n m ilita ry lea ve . Th is o c c u rre d d es p ite a P ep si p olic y e n ti-N o. 10

- 1405 13 tl i ngc er ta i n mi l i ta r y e m p lo y ee s “pa y c o o r di na ti o n” i n t e n d e d t o “ b r i d g e th e g a p b e t we e n Mi l i t a r y P a y a nd nor m alpay re cei ved. ” Id. a t3 9 9
. A ft e r th e p l a i n t i ffc o mpla i ned that he had not re cei ved di ffer enti alpay, Pepsi depo si te d the ne t paya l l eg edly o wed i nt o hi s ac co unt and then unexpectedl y wit h d re w i t in a m att ero fdays. Id. at4 00
. The c o ur t o n a ppea ls i m pl y a ff irmed the d istri ct cou rt’s find ing after a b e nc h trial th at th e d if

fer enti alm i l i tar y paywas a “ benefi t” pr ot ec ted by USERRA

— l ar gel y b ecause Pepsiacc epted on ap p eal th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s fin d in g t h a t itvio lat ed U SE R R A
. Id. at 403. A s th e ab ov e fac t s d e m o n st ra te , P epsii s inapp l i cabl e t o Gross ’ s s i tuati on. The pl ai nti ffth er e had bee n prom i sed dif f er en t i a lp a y b y b o th a c o mpa nyp o l i c y a nd a tl e a st one com pany em plo yee , and re cei ved none. In contr ast, Gross di d re cei ve differ ential pay und erPPG’s Attack o n Am e r i c a P o l i c y . And u nl i k e P epsi , P PG n e v e r a dm itted a U SE R R A viol ation n o r acced ed to Gross ’s dem and that di ffer enti alpay be c al cul ate d accor ding to hi s pre fer re d fo rm ula

. The g en er alpr emi se unde r l y i ng Gr o ss ’ s ar g um en t

— that an em plo yee m ay contr act w i th hi s co m pany f or gr eat erbene fi ts than U SER RA pro vi des

— is unc ont roversia l. S e eCre ws , 56 7 F .3d at86 7; s e eal s o 20 C.F
. R. § 1002
. 7( c) (“U SE R R A d oe s n ots u p er se d e, n u llify or d im in ish an y . . . contract, ag re em ent, pol i cy, pl an, prac ti ce o r othe r m a t t e r th at es ta b lish es an em p loy m en t rig h t o r b en efit th at is m or e b en efic ial th an . . . a r i g h t o r b en efit provi ded under the A ct. ”)
. Itsim plyd oes n ot ass i st Gross14 N o. 10

- 1405 he re. PP G ’s A ttac k on A m e r ica policy w as a volun tary co m pan y po l i cy . Gr o ss pr es en ts no ev i den ce to the contr ar y. M or eover, as di scusse d above , PPG d i d not f ai lto per f o r m unde r the po l i cyo r i n a ny w ayr es cind i t. The p oli cyi n e ffec t dur i ngGr o ss ’ s 20 04

- 05 de pl o y m en t ex te n d ed d iffer en t i a l p a y in“ an am ou nt equ al to th e d if

fer en c e b et w ee n h is or h er m on th ly s a l a ry for th eir re gul arwork schedule and the am ou n t o fhi s o r her m onthl y m i l i tar y b ase pay, excl usi ve ofal l owances . ” T h is l anguage sa ys nothi ng ab out how that differ ence w ill be calcu lated

. Th e m eth od PP G em p loyed d uring Gros s’s 2004

- 05 deploy m ent e nsured thatGros s s uffer ed n o l oss ofpay orbene fi ts on a ccount ofhi s s er vic e. G ro ss’ s pro posed cal cul ati on was notguar antee d by the l anguage o fth e p oli cy. The r e i s thus no ne ed to r ely o n C rew s’ “equalbene fi ts” hol ding to see thatGros s’ s cl ai m f ai l s. There i s no ev i dence i n the re cor d that a ny em plo yee du ring the r el evantti m e per i od, m il i tar y o r othe rwis e, re cei ved di ffer enti alpay acco rdi ng to the cal cul ati on Gr o s s p r o po s e s . Bec a us e P PG di d extend differ enti alpay to Gross , o ver rul i ng Cr e ws w oul d not a ssi st Gross with hi s a rgum ent that § 43 11 re quir ed PPG to p ay h im not onl y di ffer ential p ay, but differ enti alpay cal cul ate d acc o r di ngt o the pe r di em m o delhe pr o po se d. And al thoug h PPG ’ s deci si on t o adopt a m or e f avo rabl e pay c alc u lat ion in 2 00 7 is lau d ab le, n ot h in g in U SE R R A ob ligat es i t t o re tr oac ti vel y ap plythatcal cul ati on o r su ggests tha t th e pr ev i o us meth o d us ed was unl awful ordi scr i m i natory. See 20 C. F
. R. § 1 00 2. 7( a) ( “US ERRA es tabl i sh es a fl o o r, no t a ce i l i ng, f o r th e e m pl o y m en t an d re em p l o y m e n t rig h ts an d be n efit s o f th os e itp ro te c ts
. . . .N o. 10

- 1405 15 [ A ] n em plo yerm ay provi d e g re ate r ri ghts and benefi ts th an U SE R R A req u ire s[.]” ); Cr e ws , 56 7 F
. 3d at8 67( no ting th atUSERRA e nc o ur ag es m i l i ta r y se r vi ce b y “ au th o r i zing em plo yer s t o go abov e a nd bey ond the m i ni m um r equ irem en ts of the statu te”). That l eave s w hat Gro ss chara cter i zes as hi s r eta l i ati on c l ai m under § 4311
. The di str i ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that PP G w as en titl ed to su m m ary j ud gm en t bec au s e G ross’s c o mpl a i ntf a i l e d t o a l l e g e a nyr e t a l i a t o r y ac t i o n b y P PG
. G r o s s now argue s tha t the district cou rt fai led to u nd ersta nd thatPPG’s a lleg ed m i scal cul ati on o fhi s pay w as i ts el fr et al i atory
. PP G m aint ains , a s i t di d dur i ngthe sum m ar y j ud gm ent pr oce edi ngs b el ow, that Gross neve r r ai se d hi s r et al i at i o n c l ai m unt i lhe move d f o r s um m ary j ud gm en t. PP G also argu es, a n d w e agree, th at G ross’s cl ai m f ai l s o n the m er i ts. S ec ti o n 4 31 1(b) ( 1) pr o hibi ts a n e m pl o y erfr o m t ak i ng “any advers e e m plo ym ent a ction aga i nst a ny per son beca us e s uc h pe r s o n . . . h a s t a k e n a n a c t i o n t o e nfo rce a pro tect i on” guar antee d by U SERRA
. Thus, Gros s m ust dem onst ra te that he eng ag ed i n acti vi ty prot ecte d und erU SERRA and that PPG to ok an adver se em plo ym en t a c tio n ag ain st h i m as a re su lt. Se eFranc i s v. Booz, A ll en, & Ham il ton, Inc. , 45 2 F.3d 29 9, 30 9 (4 th C ir. 20 06 ); see al s o Cr e ws , 5 67F
. 3d at8 68

- 69
. As we no te d i n Cr e ws , t he sa m e r equi r ementof a “ m at er i al l y a dve r se ” empl o y m en t ac tio n th at ap p lies u n d er o t h er civ il righ ts st at u te s is ap p lica b le u n d er U SE R R A
. Cr e ws , 5 6 7F
. 3 d a t8 6 8

- 69. That is to say, Gros s m ust point to an e m plo ym ent a cti on su c h as te rm i nati on, dem oti on a ccom panie d by a l oss16 N o. 10

- 1405 ofpay, o r a m ate ri all oss of benefi ts orr esponsibi l i ti es that “si gni fi cantl y a l ter s the te rm s of condi ti ons” ofhi s e m plo ym en t. Id. a t8 6 9 ( qu o t i ng G riffin v . P o tter, 35 6 F
. 3d 824, 829 (7th Cir. 2004)). Gros s c l a i ms tha th e e ng a g e d in pr o t e c t e d a c t i vi ty byc o m pl ainin g a bo utPP G’ s ca l cul at i o n o fhi s di ffer en ti alpa y, a nd tha t PPG r et al i at ed when i t dec i ded to “ den y [ hi m ] di ffer en ti al pay . ” H e al so se ems to be a r g ui ng that PPG ’ s o rigi nalcal cul ati on o fhi s di ffer enti alpay w as an advers e em plo ym ent acti on, despit e th e fa ct th atthi s ca lculati o n obv i o us l ypr ec ede d hi s RES OLVE com pla i nt abo ut t h is ver y i ssue. I t i s e asyto se e that Gross ’ s cl ai m f ai l s o n m ult i p le level s. Fi rs t, co ntra ryto th e a ss er tio n in G ro ss ’s b rie f, PP G n ev er “d en ied ” h im differ enti alpay

— i t s i m ply d id not c al cul ate thatpay acco rdi ng to Gros s’ s pre fer re d fo rm ula

. Se c on d, the c al cul ati on e m plo yed byPPG d oes not amoun t to a n a dve r se e m pl o y m en t acti o n. PP G co nsi dered his RE SOLV E com pla i nt and deter m i ned that i ts cal cul ati on o fdi ffer enti alpay conf or m ed w i th bo th US E R R A a n d i t s i n t e r n a lAt t a c ko n Ame r i c a P o l i c y . As discu sse d above , Gros s s uffer ed no l oss o fpay or b e n e fi t s a s a r e s u l to fh i s 2 0 0 4

- 0 5 d e p l o y me n t, a n d P PG w as enti re l y withi n i ts ri ghts to in te rp ret i ts pol i cy as i t di d. M or eov er, o n a t em pora ll eve l it is d iffi cul t i fnot i m possibl e t o und er sta nd how P P G ’ s ca l cul ati on o f Gr o ss ’ s m i l i ta r y pa y i n 2 004-05 c o ul d ha ve b ee n ca used by hi s RESOL VE co m pla i nt som e t i m e a fter he r etur ned fro m hi s dep loym ent. A t be st, Gros s s eem s t o be ar gui ng tha t the co nti nued r efu salto cal cul ate the payN o. 10

- 1405 17 as he w i shed f ol l owing hi s co m pla i nt am ounted to r eta l i ati on. Fo r the r eas ons outl i ned abov e, thi s a rgum ent t oo goes n ow he re

— th e ca l cul at i o n, whi chl eft Gr o ss i n the sam e fi nanci alposi ti on w hi l e deploy ed as i fhe ha d never left

— can har dlybe consi dered a m ate ri al l y a dvers e em p l o y m en t a c tio n . Se eSt ephe ns v. Er i cks on , 56 9 F
. 3d 779, 790 ( 7th Cir
. 2009 ) ( “Fe deral l aw prot ects an em p loy ee onl y fro m r eta l i ati on that pr od u c es an i nj ury, and, ther efor e, an em p loy er ’s re ta liat or y c on d u c t is ac tio n ab le o n l y i f it w ou ld be m at er ially ad ve rs e t o a rea so n ab le em p loy ee .”); C ole v. Il li nois , 562 F.3d 812 , 81 6 -1 7 ( 7th Cir. 2009 ) ( “[ N ] ot eve ryth ing that m ake s a n em plo yee unhap py i s a n acti onabl e a dvers e a cti on. ”) ( i nter nal quo ta ti o ns a nd c i ta ti o n o m i tt ed)

. Thu s, w he th erc o nsi dered o n the me r i t s o r a s a r e s ul to ff a i l ur e t o r ai se th e cl ai m bel ow, Gross ’ s r eta l i ati on cl ai m f ai l s a s a m att ero fl aw and PPG i s e nti tl ed to sum m ar y j ud gm ent. The r e i s o ne fi na l m at te r . Gr o ss al so ar g ue s tha t the di strictc o ur t er r ed byt ax i ngc o st s ag ains t hi m i n c o ntr avent i on o fU SERRA
. S peci fi call y, U SERRA pro vi des that, “[ n]o fees o r cour t c os ts m ay be c harg ed orta xed ag ain stan y p er so n cla im in g rig h ts u n d er th i s ch ap te r.” 38 U .S .C
. § 4323(h)(1). Th e d istri ct cou rt’s sum m ary j ud gm ent o rderspeci fi ed that the a cti on was di sm i sse d o n the mer i ts “ wi thc o st s as t ax ed bythe cler ko fthe c o ur t
. ” In r e c o gni ti on o f§ 4 3 2 3 ( h) ( 1 ) , P PG n e v e r fi l e d a bi l lo fco sts and no c ost s hav e been i m posed on Gross
. Thu s, thi s i ssue m ay be m oo t. N onethel ess , o ut o fan abundance ofcauti on, we w i l lr em and fo r the l i m i ted pu rpos e o fal l owing th e d i str i ct c ourtto co rr ect the m i sst at em en t in th e jud gm en t r e ga rd in g c os ts
. See U nited18 N o. 10

- 1405 Sta tes v . B o nn er, 522 F.3d 804 , 808-09 (7th C ir. 2008) (ord er in g lim i t e d r em an d so th at d ist ric t c ou rtco u ld correct a cleri cal error in w ritten j ud gm en t).

III. Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we A FFIRM the j u d gm ent o f th e di st r i ctc o ur t g r an tings um m ary j udg m en t to PP G I nd us t r i e s , a nd R EMA ND so l el y forthe d ist ric t co urt to cor re ct the er ro r i denti fi ed ab ov e r ega rdi ng the ta xati on ofco sts
.

3- 7- 11