Document: 502 U.S. 215 112 S.Ct. 570 116 L.Ed.2d 578 William "Sky" KING, Petitionerv.ST. VINCENT'S HOSPITAL. No. 90-889. Argued Oct. 16, 1991. Decided Dec. Syllabus Petitioner King, a National Guard member, advised his civilian employer, respondent St. Vincent's Hospital, that he had accepted 3-year full-time appointment with the Guard, and requested leave of absence from hospital job as ostensibly guaranteed by 38 U.S.C. § 2024(d), statute which provides reemployment rights to service personnel in King's position. denied request brought suit District Court, seeking declaratory judgment Act does not provide after tours duty long King's. The court granted relief, ruling type question was protected but holding, under Circuit precedent, requests subsection must be reasonable, for per se unreasonable. A panel Court Appeals affirmed. Held: Section 2024(d) limit length military member Armed Forces retains right reemployment. Subsection (d)'s text—which specifies any covered employee "shall . period required perform active [and] [u]pon release such shall permitted return [his or her] position"—is utterly silent about durational on protection it provides. Reading whole, inferred unqualified nature deliberate, since other subsections 2024, protecting classes personnel, expressly periods their protection. argument limits reflect hierarchy rights—under reservists subject (d) are entitled least therefore an imprecise reasonableness—is unconvincing because its conclusion rests circular reasoning, requiring assumption point at issue: really do get less than inductees, enlistees, veterans subsections. Pp. 218-223. 901 F.2d 1068, (CA 11 1990), reversed remanded. SOUTER, J., delivered opinion all Members joined, except THOMAS, who took no part consideration decision case. Amy L. Wax, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Harry Hopkins, Birmingham, Ala., respondent. Justice SOUTER Court. 1 issue this case is whether provision what popularly known Veterans' Reemployment Rights Act, implicitly We hold not. 2 * In June 1987, petitioner King,1 Alabama Guard,2 applied become Command Sergeant Major Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) program, thereby undertook serve tour Army regulations3 person holding position.4 next month King learned selection Guard's appointment. He reported duty, ordered, August 17. Several weeks later, him unreasonable thus beyond Act's guarantee. 3 After so informing further step bringing action United States Northern settle applicable terms provided Although held AGR program carried 2024(d),5 nonetheless rendered ground imposing test reasonableness request, following Eleventh Gulf Paper Corp. v. Ingram, 811 1464, 1468 (1987), turn interpreted Fifth reasonable. See Lee Pensacola, 634 886, 889 (1981).6 affirmed, two judges agreeing guaranteeing would unreasonable, putting outside 2024(d). 1068 (1990). Judge Roney concurred separately dissented creation rule. Id., 1072-1073. 4 Like Circuits, Third has engrafted requirement onto Eidukonis Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 873 688, 694 (1989).7 Fourth Circuit, hand, declined so. Kolkhorst Tilghman, 897 1282, 1286 (1990), cert. pending, 89-1949. certiorari resolve conflict, 498 ----, 111 950, 1039 (1991), now reverse Circuit. II 5 start text see Schreiber Burlington Northern, Inc., 472 1, 5, 105 2458, 2461, 86 (1985), free express conditions upon provisions contention here: 6 [Any person] person's employer training inactive States. Upon employee's [duty] position seniority, status, pay, vacation have if been absent purposes. (1988 ed.). 7 Thus, could call subsection's guarantee "unequivocal unqualified," Kolkhorst, supra, 1286, itself observed "does address 'reasonableness' reservist's request." States, 1468. 8 recognizes importance statute's freedom provisos, Brief Respondent 9, still argues favors stresses "leave" used enjoyed "employee," whose status implies employment relationship continues during absence. Accordingly, employees "returned" positions over, while 2024 "restored" theirs,8 difference language attesting former remain employees, latter cease time away. very notion continuing incompatible absences lengthy King's, finds supported speaking actual mechanics resuming employment. While reapply employment, those allowed, indeed required, "report work beginning regularly scheduled working period" expires. posits impracticality expecting report immediately absence, "to take apron off peg," hospital's counsel put it, go back nothing happened. It also makes much difficulties filling responsible follow incumbents turned out abruptly serving long, prior incumbent's equally abrupt return. Subsections (a), (b), (c), (g) identify reservists, called make offered inductees pursuant 2021(a)(2)(A)(ii), namely, "restor[ation]" formerly "or like pay." To these arguments, others them we set length, replies order. may grant congressionally mandated can ungainly perquisite service, when lasts promises do, were tinker statutory scheme reasonably accord some significance burdens imposed both employers workers leaves chosen means eventual personnel. But find equivocation silence, render susceptible interpretive choice. On contrary, verbal distinctions underlying arguments pallid light textual far more glaring them: while, noted, provides, 2024(a) currently gives enlistees four years protection, possibility extension five even longer. Again, example, 2024(b)(1) extends entering (except "the purpose determining physical fitness [or] training") years, that.9 Given examples affirmative limitations benefits conferred neighboring provisions, infer simplicity consistent plain meaning benefit without service. concluding more, course, cardinal rule read Massachusetts Morash, 490 107, 115, 109 1668, 1673, 104 98 (1989), language, not, depends context. See, e.g., Shell Oil Co. Iowa Dept. Revenue, 488 19, 26, 278, 282, 102 186 (1988). "Words pebbles alien juxtaposition; they only communal existence; each interpenetrate other, aggregate purport setting used. ." NLRB Federbush Co., 121 954, 957 (CA2 1941) (L. Hand, J.) (quoted Oil, 25, n. 6, 281, 6).10 embraces same principle (though, think, way misapplication) countering preceding analysis structural own, purports discern significant scheme. As reads together companion most generous goes reference duration service.11 Enlistees response order come exceed years;12 claims bottom scheme," fall Ibid. unnatural, view, should voluntary giving rise protection.13 convince. invokes context, quite reasoning. There are, just pointed out, differences treatment among various people statute. necessarily hierarchies, revealed inexorably downward assuming issue, within on, provisions. Without there simply treatment, respected limiting where contains leaving textually unlimited Congress apparently chose it. Because places enforce against Vincent's, implied.14 III reversed, remanded proceedings opinion. THOMAS How why petitioner's nickname claimed place caption mystery record. militia state control certain constitutionally defined circumstances. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 15. authorized generally "provide organizing, arming, disciplining" federal law Department Reg. 135-18, ch. 2, II, 2-9. Length AD FTD (1985). established 1980. Defense Authorization 1980, Pub.L. 96-107, Tit. IV, 401(b), 93 Stat. 803, 807. covers participants. Rehabilitation Education Amendments 96-466, 511(b), 94 2171, 2207. Neither party contests applicability request. binding precedent decided January 20, 1981, before carved Fifth. Bonner Prichard, 661 1206, 1207 (CA11 1981) (en banc ) (Fifth decisions handed down Sep. 30, adopted precedent). Lemmon County Santa Cruz, 686 F.Supp. 797, 802 (ND Cal.1988) (adopting forth ); Bottger Doss Aeronautical Servs., 609 583, 585 (MD Ala.1985) (following Anthony Basic Am. Foods, 600 352, 354-355 Cal.1984) (both parties accepting test). 9 counterexample, might cite 2024(g), providing ordered 90 days extending through duty. Standing alone (d), suggest express; specific described above show knew how intent. Even unsettled drafting, however, ultimately favor canon members Services construed beneficiaries' favor. Fishgold Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 275, 285, 66 1105, 1111, L.Ed. 1230 (1946). will presume congressional understanding principles, McNary Haitian Refugee Center, 888, 898, 1005 (1991) ("It presumable legislates knowledge our basic rules construction"). 10 Hartwell, 73 (6 Wall.) 385, 396, 18 830 (1868) (in construing adopt sense words best harmonizes context promotes policy objectives legislature); 2A C. Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction 46.05 (rev. 4th ed. 1984). 2021 12 §§ 2024(a), here additional year Government 13 support declension legislative history relying heavily excerpts House Senate Reports 1960 bill eventuated current 17-18, 31. 14 "When unambiguous, judicial inquiry complete, rare exceptional circumstances." Rubin 449 424, 430, 101 698, 701, 633 (1981) (internal quotations omitted). Such circumstances present here; indicate below, invocation relies citing short-term 2024. S.Rep. 1672, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 2; H.R.Rep. 1263, 6; 17, demonstrate 1960, short leaves, surely blunted Congress' undoubted intention 20 later apply participants inference intended espouses buttressed joint House-Senate Conference Committee's disapproval shift taken Labor issue. Before 1981 adopt. Labor, Handbook (1970). 886 (CA5 1981), different view less. 97-782, p. (1982). Subsequently, Committee Report announced Affairs Committees "d[id] believe 90-day [was] well-founded either interpretation application pertinent law." 128 Cong.Rec. 25,496, 25513 Coming did aftermath coverage statement decidedly odds position, confirms enactment modify unconditional

Category: 1