Source: http://crottyandson.com/washington-army-national-guard-userra-cases/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:24:25+00:00

Document:
These cases involve Washington Army and Air National Guard servicemembers, Washington based reservists, USERRA, and the Washington Law Against Discrimination.
The first case, Chris Cooper v. Prince Telecom, involves a Washington Army National Guard enlisted Soldier who asked his employer whether he could apply for a promotion but was told, via text message, that “with all your guard stuff and last min training you won’t be able to do it.” A copy of the complaint and embedded text message is available here. This case resolved.
The second case, Megan Rutan v. American Insure-All, involves a Washington Army National Guard officer who was fired six days after informing her boss that she was returning from military duty and demanding that her boss cease the military related workplace harassment she was experiencing. A copy of the complaint is available here. This case resolved.
The third case, Kevin Wolff v. David Evans & Associates, involves a Washington Air National Guard officer who was denied re-employment upon his return from a thirty-day military leave period. A copy of the complaint is available here. Mr. Wolff’s case resolved.
The fourth case, Marcus Kimm v. Aerotek, Inc. et. al. involves a Washington Air National Guard non-commissioned officer who was denied initial employment after informing his prospective employer, and that employer’s recruiting agency, of an upcoming military deployment. A copy of the complaint is available here. On July 24, 2018, Aerotek filed papers with the court seeking to dismiss Mr. Kimm’s claims. Mr. Kimm response brief and statement of facts in support of his response are available here and here. On October 24, 2018, the Court denied Aerotek’s attempt to have Mr. Kimm’s case dismissed. A copy of the Court’s order is available here. Mr. Kimm’s case resolved.
The fifth case, J. Mitch Hall, et. al. v. L-3 Communications Corp., et al., is a proposed class action lawsuit that involves L-3’s failure to hire members of the reserve components of the Armed Services into pilot positions and L-3’s failure to follow USERRA’s re-employment requirements as it relates to other L-3 employees who are members of the military reserves. A copy of the Third Amended Complaint is available here. In 2018 L-3 agreed to settle the case for $2,000,000.00. On October 30, 2018, the parties filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval and Settlement Agreement regarding the lawsuit. The New York Times article on the L-3 case is available here. The Air Force Times covered the case as well.
The sixth case, Daniel Espinoza v. City of Seattle, et. al., involves a career City of Seattle police officer who alleges that the City failed to promote him due to his obligations with the United States Marine Corps Reserves. A copy of Mr. Espinoza’s complaint is available here.
The seventh case, Travis Hillman v. Hayden Homes, LLC, involves a Washington Army National Guard Sergeant who was denied a $35,000.00 employer home purchase benefit immediately after he informed his employer that he was going on long-term military leave. A copy of Mr. Hillman’s lawsuit is available here. The parties agreed to resolve the Hillman case.
The eighth case, Stough v. Benton County, Washington, involves a Washington Army National Guard Soldier who was fired shortly after he was injured during a drill weekend. A copy of Mr. Stough’s complaint is available here.
The ninth case, Tighe v. King County, involves a U.S. Coast Guard Reserve officer/Deputy Sheriff who complained that King County violated USERRA by making him undergo additional training as a precondition of returning to his pre-deployment job and who was retaliated against on account of that protected activity. A copy of Mr. Tighe’s complaint is available here. The case resolved.
The tenth case, Del Rosario v. Bates Technical College, involves the constructive discharge of a U.S. Air Force reservist. A copy of Ms. Del Rosario’s complaint is here. The State of Washington removed the case to federal court. After the State removed the case Ms. Del Rosario filed a motion asking that the federal court remand the case back to state court. The Court granted Ms. Del Rosario’s motion and remanded the case to state court. The case settled for $335,000.00.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.