### In th e



# United States Court of Appeals Forthe Seventh Cir c uit

No. 18-3609

D AVI D M U E L L E R

, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

C I T Y OF J OL I E T

, et al ., Defendants-Appellees.

Appea l fro m the U ni ted S ta tes Di stri ct Co urt fo r the No rthern Di stri ct o f Il l i no i s, Ea stern Di v i s i o n. No . 1 7C 0 7 9 3 8 — Ha rry D. Le ine nwe be r , Jud g e.

A RGUE D N OV E MB E R 4, 2019

— D E C I D E D D E C E MB E R 4, 2019

Befor e W OOD, ChiefJudge, and B AUE R and B RE N NAN , Circuit Judges.
B AU E R , Cir cuit Judge. S er geant Dav i d Mueller took a leav e of absence fr om the Ci ty of Joli et P oli ce Depar tment to r epor t for acti v e duty in the Illin oi s Nati onal Guar d Counter dr ug T ask For ce. When the Joli et P ol ic e Depar tment placed hi m
on u npai d leav e, Mueller r esi gned fr om h i s Nati ona l G uar d2 No. 18-3609 posi ti on an d sued the Ci ty of Joli et and hi s super v i s or s for

e m p l o y ment di scr i minati on. Th e i ssue on a p p e a l i s wh e the r th e Uni fo r m e d S e r v i c e M e mb e r s E mployment and Reemployment Ri ghts Act (“US ERRA”), whi ch pr ohib i ts di scr i minati on agai nst those in “ser v i ce in a uni for med s er v i ce,” pr otects Mueller ’s Nati onal Guar d duty

. M u e l l e r s ued under US ERRA, clai ming that the Joli et Poli ce Depar tment’s d eni al of compensati on and benefi ts w hi le he

w as on Nati onal Guar d duty amounted to i llegal, anti -mi li tar y di scr i min ati on. The defendants mov ed to di s m iss the c omplaint, ar guing that hi s Nati onal Guar d counter dr ug duty w as author i zed under Illinoi s law a n d n o t c ov er ed by US E RRA. Th e d i str i c t cour t judge agr eed a nd gr anted the d efendants’ moti on to di smi s s

. Mueller appeals and a r gues that “ ser v i ce in the uni for m ed ser v ic e s” expli ci tly cov er s full-ti me Nati onal Guar d duty

, including counter dr ug acti v i ti es under32 U.S

. C. §§ 112 a nd 502(f ). W

e find that the plain language of US ERRA

cov er s Ti tle 32 full-ti me Nati onal Guar d duty and r ev er se the di str i ct cour t’s di smi ssal.

I. BACKGROUND
Dav i d M ueller w as hi r ed as a Ci ty of J oli et poli ce offi cer and subsequently pr omoted to ser geant. On August 15, 2015, Mueller enli sted in the Nati onal Guar d and per for med acti v e duty ser v i ce on multi ple occ a s io n s ther eafter

. In Mar ch 2016, Mueller r ecei v ed noti ce fr om the Nati onal Guar d a dv i sing hi m of an openi ng in the Illinoi s N ati onal Guar d Counter dr ug T a sk For c e. Mueller a p pli ed for the posi ti on. On Mar ch 23, he

r ecei v ed or der s to r epor t for “Full Ti me N ati onal Guar d Duty” in Romeov i lle, Illinoi s. Th e Adj u tant Gener al of the Illinoi sNo. 18-3609 3

Nati onal G uar d exec u t e d the or der s, assi gning Mueller to counter dr u g suppor t i n accor dance wi th 32 U.S .C. § 112 fr om May 9, 2016, thr ough S eptember 30, 2016.
Dur ing thi s ti me, Br i an Benton ser v ed as the Ci ty’s Chi ef of P oli ce a nd Edgar Gr egor y ser v ed as the Ci ty’s Deput y Poli ce Chi ef. Upon r e c e iv ing hi s or der to r epor t for Nati onal Guar d duty , Mueller infor m ed them of hi s d eployment or der s and hi s upcoming a c t iv e duty wi th the Nati onal G uar d. On May 9, Mue l l er began acti v e duty wi th the Illinoi s Nati onal Guar d Counter dr ug T

ask For ce. On June 15, Benton sent an emai l to Mueller stati ng that Mueller w ould be p l a c e d on an “unpai d leav e of absence,” w ould hav e to use hi s b ene f it ti me whi le

aw a y , a nd w ould “not continue to accr ue leav e ti me, such as
v acati on or per sonal days.” On August 1, Mueller r esi gned fr om hi s Nati onal Guar d posi ti on a n d r e t ur ned to the Joli et P oli ce Depar tment. Fr om hi s ful l -ti me m i li tar y employment on May 9 to hi s r etur n on August 1 , M u e ller di d not r eceiv e compensati on fr om the Joli et P oli ce De p a r tm e nt and had to use 120 hour s of accr u ed ti me and benefi ts. Mueller sued th e Ci ty of Joli et, Benton, and Gr egor y for

v i o lati ng US ERRA and the Illinoi s Mi li tar y Leav e of Absence Act. The defendants m o v e d to di smi ss and the di str i ct cour t agr eed, deci ding that US ERRA did n o t cov er Mueller ’s posi ti on since i t “w as clear ly under the author i ty of the S tate of Illinoi s” and that the state law clai m lacked feder al j ur i sdi cti on. The di str i ct cour t j udge noted that Mueller ’s or d er s came fr om the S tate Adj utant G e n er al and looked to a Depar tment of Labor r egulati on, 20 C.F .R. § 1002.57(b), stati ng that: “Nati onal Guar d s er v i ce under author i ty of S tate law i s n ot pr otected b y US ERRA.” The j udge also added that i f Mueller ’s posi ti on w as4 No. 18-3609

consi der ed “feder al ser v i ce” then i t w ould vi olate both t he P o s se Comi tatus Act and the funding pr ov i s i on of 32 U.S

. C. § 112(a)(1). Mueller mov ed to r econsi der and for l eav e to fi le an amended complain t. The defend a n t s mov ed to di smi ss the amended complaint and the di str i ct cour t gr anted the moti on for the same reas o n s: that Mueller , “as a m ember of a state dr ug inter di cti on task for ce, w as attempti ng to enfor ce a state

cr i min al law” and consequently not cov er ed by US ERRA.
II. DISCUSSION
Mueller , suppor ted by the Uni ted S tates and sev er a l S tate gov er nments as ami ci, appeals the di str i ct cour t j udgment and

ar gues that the j u dge mi sin t e r pr eted US ERRA by excluding Mueller ’s ser v ic e fr om pr otecti on. Speci fi cally , he a r gues that US ERRA’s di s c r i minati on secti on pr otects “ser v i c e in a uni for med s e r v ice,” whi ch 3 8 U.S .C. § 4303(13) defines as includin g “full-ti me Nati onal Guar d duty .” Mueller ar gues hi s
ser v i ce i s explic it l y categor i zed as full-ti me Nati onal Guar d duty and feder a lly author i zed by 32 U.S .C. §§ 112 and 502(f ).
W e r ev i ew de novo a di str i c t cour t’s gr ant of a Feder al Rules of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12(b)(6) moti on to di smi s s. Roberts v

. City of Chicago , 817 F .3d 561, 564 (7th Ci r

. 2016). In doi ng so, w e accept all w ell-pleaded f acts in the complaint a s tr ue. Id. W e note that her e the i ssue c oncer ns statutor y inter pr etati on a n d is thus a questi on of law

. Commodity Futures T

r a d i n g Comm’n v

. W

orth Bullion Grp., Inc., 7 17 F .3d 5 4 5, 549 (7th Ci r

. 2013). W e star t wi th “the l anguage employ ed b y Congr ess and the assumpti on that the or dinar y meaning of that languag e a c cu r a t e ly e x p r e sses the legi slati v e pur pose.” Id. at 550 (quotin g T urley v

. Gaetz, 625 F .3dNo. 18-3609 5
1005, 1008 (7th Ci r

. 2010) and Park ‘N Fly , Inc. v

. D ollar Park & Fly , Inc. , 469 U.S . 189, 194 (1985)).
The statutor y s cheme of US ERRA a nd N a t ional Guar d

ser v i ce make i t clear that Mueller ’s“Full-Ti me Nati onal Guar d Duty” i s author i zed by feder al law and pr otected by US E RRA. The US ERRA empl o y ment di scr i minati on secti on states that those in “ ser v i ce in a uni for m e d s er v i ce shall not be deni ed ini ti al employment, r eemployment, r etenti on in employment, pr omoti on, or a n y benefi t of employment by an employ er on the basi s of that member shi p.” 38 U.S .C. § 4311(a). The defini

ti ons secti on of US ERRA defin es “ ser v i ce in the u ni for m ed

s e r v i c es” as “the per for mance of d u ty on a v oluntar y o r in v o l untar y basi s in a uni for med ser v i ce under competent author i ty and in cludes

... full-ti me Nati onal Guar d duty .” 38 U.S .C. § 4 303(13). Instead o f e n g a ging in thi s statutor y analysi s, the d i str i ct cour t l ooked to a D epar tment of L abor r egulati on that sai d Nati onal G uar d ser v ic e under S tate l aw a uthor i ty i s not p r o t e cted by US ERRA. 20 C.F .R. § 1002.57(b). Ev en i f the

r egulati on w er e necessary to inter pr et US ERRA, the pr ev i ous subsecti on states that “Nati ona l Guar d ser v i ce under Feder al author i ty i s pr otected by US ERRA,” whi ch “in cludes d uty under T i tle 32 of the Uni ted S t a t e s Code, such as

... full-ti me Nati onal G uar d d uty

.” 20 C.F .R. § 1002.57(a). As p oi nted out by the a mi ci, the r egulati on ser v es to clar i fy that US E RRA does not p r o t ect Nati onal Guar d ser vi ce in “S tate Acti v e Duty ,” whi ch i s unde r e x clusi v e S tate author i ty

. Both US ERRA and the r egulati on state, in plain language, that Tit l e 32 full-ti me Nati onal Guar d duty i s cov er ed.
The di str i c t cour t also er r ed in i ts inter pr etati on of 32 U.S

. C. § 112 and the P osse Comi tatus Act b y conf lati ng feder al6 No. 18-3609

ser v i ce and feder al author i t y

. S e cti on 1 12 of T i tle 32 c ov er s counter dr u g acti v i ti es and speci fi c ally cr eates a mechani sm wher eby the feder al gov er nment pr ov i des f un d s to a S tate who has i ts counter d r u g plan a ppr ov ed by the Dep a r t m ent

o f De fense. 32 U.S .C. § 112. The di str i ct cour t er r oneously concluded that since multi ple p r ov i si ons of S ecti on 112 b ar r ed per sonnel “in Feder al ser v i ce” fr o m per for ming counter dr ug
a c t i vi ti es, Mueller ’s ser v i ce could not b e under “Feder a l author i ty

.” Fi r st, e quatin g feder al ser v i ce and feder al author i ty

cr eates unnec e s s a ry c o nt r a d i c t i ons betw een 32 U.S .C. § 112 and the Depar tment of Labor r egulati on that consi de r s Ti tle 32 full-ti me Nati onal Guar d duty as “under Feder al author i ty .” S econd, the language of US E RRA does not li mi t pr otecti on to those in “Feder al ser v i ce” li ke the Ar my or Nav y b ut to those in “ ser v i ce in a uni for med ser v i ce,” whi ch expli ci tly includes T it le 3 2 f ull-ti me Nati onal G uar d duty

. The P osse Comi tatus Act li kewi se only bar s the Ar my and Ai r For ce fr om domesti c law enfor cement, but does n ot a p p ly to Ti tle 32 Nati onal Guar d duty

. 18 U.S .C. § 1 385. Feder al ser v i ce for p ur po ses of the P osse Comit atus Act r efer s to standing acti v e d uty for c es
or gani zed under Ti tle 10 of th e U

. S

. Code. Whi le the Ar m y Nati on a l Guar d and the Ai r N ati onal Guar d ar e r eser v e components of the Ar my a n d Ai r For ce, r espec t i v ely , the Nati onal Guar ds ar e cov er ed by di ffer ent statutes ( i.e. , Ti tle 32) than those that apply t o t he acti v e duty for ces ( i.e. , Ti tle 1 0). Becau s e T i tle 32 full-ti me Nati onal Guar d duty i s consi der ed S ta t e s er v i ce that i s di stinct fr om the Ar m y and Ai r For ce, extendi ng US ERRA’s pr otecti on to Mueller does not v i olate 32 U.S .C. § 112 or the P osse Comi tatus Act.No. 18-3609 7

I n sum, the d i s tr i ct cour t er r oneously conflated feder al author i ty and feder al ser v i ce, and mi sin ter pr eted the Depar tment of Labor regulati on’s binar y betw een feder a l author i ty and state a uthor i ty

. US ERRA’s di scr i minati on pr ov i si on does not tur n on suc h d is ti ncti ons since, by c onstr ucting Ti tle 32 acti v i ti es unde r S ecti on 112 as “Full-Ti me Nati onal Guar d Duty ,” Congr ess intended for Mueller ’s ser vi c e to be cov er ed by US ERRA. W

e decline the inv i tati on to car v e out a n excepti o n for Secti on 112 counter dr u g acti v i ti es when ther e i s no textual or publi c poli cy r ati onale to do so.

III. CONCLUSION
W e c o nclude that the di str i ct c our t j udge er red in i ts inter p r etati on of US ERRA and Ti tle 32 Nati onal G uar d ser v i ce under S ecti on 112. The plain language of Ti tle 3 2 contemplates Mueller ’s ser v i c e as “Full-Ti me Nati onal Guar d Duty , ” whi ch US ERRA expli ci tly cov e r s. Th e j udgment of the di str i c t cour t i s ther efor e REVERS ED a n d w e r emand for fur ther pr oceedings consi stent wi th thi s opi ni on, including the r einstatement of Mueller ’s state-law clai m.