Opinion ID: 588199
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Perquisite of Seniority

Text: 18 Upon their return to civilian employment, veterans shall be ... reemployed without loss of seniority [and] shall be entitled to participate in insurance or other benefits offered by the employer pursuant to established rules and practices relating to employees on furlough or leave of absence. 38 U.S.C. § 2021(b)(1). More generally, a returning veteran should be ... reemployed in such manner as to give such person such status in the person's employment as the person would have enjoyed if such person had continued in such employment continuously from the time of such person's entering the Armed Forces.... § 2021(b)(2). Courts generally lump these rights together as a right to the perquisites of seniority. 19 In Alabama Power, the Supreme Court created a two-prong test to determine whether a particular claimed benefit is a perquisite of seniority: 20 If the benefit would have accrued, with reasonable certainty, had the veteran been continuously employed by the private employer, and if it is in the nature of a reward for length of service, it is a perquisite of seniority. If, on the other hand, the veteran's right to benefit at the time he entered the military was subject to a significant contingency, or if the benefit is in the nature of short-term compensation for services rendered, it is not an aspect of seniority.... 21 431 U.S. at 589, 97 S.Ct. at 2007. The Court then applied this test and determined that pension benefits that did not vest until the employee had 20 years of service or had 15 years of service and had attained the age of 50 were a reward for length of service, reasonably certain to accrue. Id. at 590-94, 97 S.Ct. at 2007-09. 22 We have no trouble coming to the same conclusion with respect to Leonard's participation in the Retirement Income Plan. It is true that, unlike the pension plan considered in Alabama Power, participation in United's Plan was voluntary. But United does not really dispute that Leonard would have continued his participation in the Plan had he not been called to service: Leonard signed up for the Plan as soon as he could when he was hired and resumed his participation as soon as he returned. When he returned, he was already anxious to make up his lost contributions. The chance that Leonard would not have chosen to continue his participation in the Plan is no more significant than the chance in Alabama Power that Davis would quit his job. Cf. Letson, 523 F.Supp. at 1227-30 (deciding that employee could go to trial on theory that he would have begun to participate in voluntary pension plan had he not been inducted before he was eligible to participate). 23 Our conclusion is reinforced by the language of the Act. Returning veterans have the right to participate in benefit programs according to the same rules that apply to other employees on furlough or leave of absence. United allowed pilots who did not withdraw their contributions when they went into the military to make up their missed contributions when they returned. Leonard was not allowed to participate in the benefit program on the same terms only because United believed that he had waived his right to participate. We have concluded that a veteran cannot waive his rights under the Act before he enters the Armed Forces. Therefore, United should have allowed Leonard to participate on the same terms as returning pilots who did not withdraw their contributions.