Opinion ID: 3013667
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the uniformed services was

Text: less than 31 days, by Plaintiff contends that 38 U.S.C. § reporting to the employer — 4312(e) confers a “right to eight-hours rest” between the time when the employee (i) not later than the 3 beginning of the first full conferring a substantive right to eight regularly scheduled work hours of rest for the returning employee. period on the first full Reading § 4312(e) in its broader calendar day following the context confirms this view, because the completion of the period of remainder of the section sets forth the service and the expiration other requirements for an employee to of eight hours after a period s e cure U S E R R A ’ s r e e m p l o ym e n t allowing for the safe guarantee, or the exceptions thereto. transportation of the person Section 4312(a) requires the employee to from the place of that give the employer advance notice of leave, service to the person’s requires that the employee’s cumulative residence; or leave be no longer than five years, and (ii) as soon as possible requires the employee to report to the after the expiration of the employer in compliance with § 4312(e). eight-hour period referred Section 4312(b) contains an exception to to in clause (i), if reporting the advan ce notice re quir e m e n t. within the period referred Subsection (c) contains exceptions to the to in such clause is five-year absence limit, and subsection (d) impossible or unreasonable sets forth the conditions under which an through no fault of the employer need not re-engage an employee. person. The remaining subsections impose other duties on the employees, and the section 38 U.S.C. § 43 12(e)(1)(A )(i)-(ii) concludes with the guarantee of USERRA (emphasis added). rights to employees who satisfy § 4312’s Unsurprisingly, plaintiff has requirements, including “the notification focused little attention on the statutory requirements established in subsection (e) language. By its plain terms, § 4312(e) . . . .” 38 U.S.C. § 4312(h) (emphasis sets forth the requirements of an employee added). to notify the employer of the employee’s The limited case law on § 4312 intention to return to work. The eight-hour supports this view. See, e.g., Jordan v. Air period referred to in § 4312(e)(A)(i) marks Prods. & Chems., Inc., 225 F. Supp. 2d the outer limit of the time by which the 1206, 1208 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (Section employee must report to the employer “4312 creates an unqualified right to upon returning home from military service. reemployment to those who satisfy the As the District Court concluded, § 4312(e) service duration and notice requirements. is written entirely in terms of an . . . Section 4312 places service people and employee’s duties, as opposed to an employers on notice that, upon returning employer’s obligations. There is no way from service, veterans are entitled to their to construe this statutory language as previous positions of employment.”) 4 (emphasis added); McGuire v. United rest. However, our reading of the Parcel Service, Inc., No. 97 C 0232, 1997 legislative history does not compel a WL 543059, at  (N.D. Ill. Aug. 28, contrary reading of § 4312(e)’s plain 1997) (employee’s eligibility for re- terms. See Malloy v. Eichler, 860 F.2d employment after active duty in U.S. 1179, 1183 (3d Cir. 1988) (“Where the Military Reserve “hinges on” § 4312’s language of the statute is clear, only ‘the “requisites” of, inter alia, providing notice most extraordinary showing of contrary of intent to return to work), aff’d, 152 F.3d intentions’ justify altering the plain 673, 678 (7th Cir. 1998) (employee failed meaning of a statute.”) (quoting Garcia v. to give employer “reasonable notice that United States, 469 U.S. 70, 75 (1984)). he wanted his job back”). The Reports of the Senate and House Committees on V eteran s’ Af fairs Plaintiff’s reliance on Boelter v. expressed concern for service members’ City of Coon Rapids, 67 F. Supp. 2d 1040 physical well-being, and conveyed the (D. Minn. 1999), is futile. In the context Committees’ intent that service members of interpreting a state law that grants “repo rting back to their civilian reservists the right to take paid military employment be allowed sufficient time to leave (a benefit that USERRA does not return to their residence and be rested guarantee), the Boelter court remarked in before they are to perform their work.” S. dictum that 38 U.S.C. § 4312 “guarantees, Rep. No. 103-158, at 50 (1993), 1993 WL at a minimum, time for the safe 432576; see also H.R. Rep. No. 103-65, at transportation home plus an eight-hour rest 2 9 ( 199 3) , r e p r i n t e d i n , 1 9 94 period before an employee on military U.S.C.C.A.N. 2449, 2462 (“An employee leave can be required to return to work.” . . . must be allowed a reasonable time to Id. at 1046. In holding that the city’s arrive back at his or her residence, a interpretation of the statutory term “day” reasonable time to rest, and a reasonable was incorrect under state legal precedents, time to travel to the place of the judge observed that the city’s employment.”).3 Indeed, both the Senate interpretation of the state law also “creates an inherent conflict with USERRA,” by accelerating the time limit established by § 3 4312(e) for reporting to work. Id. (The At points, the Senate and House judge mistakenly viewed § 4312 in terms Reports discuss § 4312(e)’s requirements of reporting to work, as opposed to giving in terms of reporting to begin work, as notice of an intention to return to work.) opposed to what the statute requires, However, he did not hold that USERRA reporting “the person’s intent to return” confers the right to eight hours of rest. to work. 38 U.S.C. § 4312(e)(1). See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 103-158, at 50 (“Under We acknowledge that some aspects new section 4312(e), the time periods of the legislative history favor plaintiff’s during which an individual must return to position that § 4312(e) provides a right to work or make an application for 5 and House Committees contemplated that require a reservist who returns home from the eight-hour rest period in § 4312(e) weekend duty at 10:00 p.m. to report to would prevent a scenario similar to the one work at 12:30 a.m. that night, even if it is alleged here, where an employer requires the beginning of the next regularly an employee to report to work within a few scheduled working period the next day. hours of returning from military exercises. The Committee believes that an employee See S. Rep. No. 103-158, at 50 (“The must be in a position to arrive at work eight-hour minimum period imposed rested in order to perform safely at between the time of return and the time for work.”). reporting to work would provide for However, that Congress took into needed rest. An example would be that of account a service member’s need for rest an individual arriving at his or her in shaping the reporting requirements does residence at 11:00 p.m., two hours before not mean that Congress intended to create the next regular work period scheduled to a independent right to rest. On the whole, begin at 1:00 a.m. Under the Committee the thrust of the Senate and House bill, that individual could not be required Reports’ focus on § 4312 is in terms of the to report to work any earlier than 7:00 employees’ reporting requirements, as
opposed to a statement of employees’ reprinted in, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 2462 rights. For example, both Reports explain (“For example, an employer could not that returning employees would be guaranteed USERRA rights “if the notice requirement of [4312] (a)(1) is met, the reemployment would be based on the cumulative length of military service length of his or her period of service . . . found in subsection (a)(2) is not exceeded .”) (emphasis added); H.R. Rep. No. 103- and the reporting or ap plicatio n 65, at 29, reprinted in, 1994 requirement of subsection (e) is complied U.S.C.C.A.N. at 2462 (“Under proposed with.” H.R. Rep. No. 103-65, at 24, section 4312(e), the time limits for reprinted in, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 2457; applying for reemployment would see also S. Rep. No. 103-158, at 46 (“New depend strictly on the length or duration section 4312(a) would generally provide of the military service from which the that an individual who is absent from any serviceperson is being discharged or position of employment for service in the released. . . . With regard to military uniformed services is entitled to service of less than 31 days, reemployment and benefits . . . if the servicemembers would ordinarily be person satisfies the various requirements required to report for work at the set forth in this new section.”). In short, in beginning of the first regularly scheduled § 4312(e) Congress sets forth a returning working period on the next working day employee’s requirement for providing after release from service.”) (emphasis notice of intent to return to work in order added). 6 to reclaim his or her former job, and that the action would have contains no rights-creating language. been taken in the absence Nothing in the legislative materials clearly of such person’s . . . evinces Congress’s intent that § 4312(e) exercise of a right. confer a right to rest. 38 U.S.C. § 4311(b), (c)(2). For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff Plaintiff has not alleged that Willie cannot state a cause of action under § Gordon attempted to exercise a right 4132(e) for Wawa’s alleged failure to provided by USERRA, as required by § allow Willie Gordon eight hours of rest 4311(b), because, as we have held above, between his return home from military USERRA does not confer a right to rest. exercises and commencing work. Moreover, plaintiff has failed to