Court Opinion

ID: 9480262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:42:42.793877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:34.390541
License: Public Domain

RONEY, Senior Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I agree with the Court’s holding that Sky King’s three-year leave request was unreasonable on the facts of this case. I dissent from the adoption of a per se rule. Not only is such a rule unnecessary to the resolution of this case, but it might work an injustice in some future case.
Appellant cites the case of Lemmon v. Santa Cruz County, California, 686 F.Supp. 797 (N.D.Cal.1988), which involved a three-year leave request originally made under section 2024(d). In Lemmon, a different statutory provision came to apply only after the reservist commenced active duty, and only because his duty assignment was changed. The Lemmon court nevertheless applied section 2024(d) case law, including this Circuit’s reasonableness test, found a three-year leave reasonable on the *1073facts of that case and refused to adopt a three-years-is-per-se-unreasonable rule.
Lemmon illustrates that circumstances may arise in which three-year leave requests, even under section 2024(d), should be granted. In Lemmon, the reservist was a Sheriffs Office employee whose position the employer “was able to fill ... in one day by simply reassigning other personnel within the department.” 686 F.Supp. at 802. The employer had initially approved the leave request. Yet, a three-year per se rule would have precluded the statutory relief to which the reservist was entitled.
Fairness dictates that each case be decided with due regard for the particular facts. While a bright-line rule certainly has the advantage of mechanical application, it seems unnecessary in the administration of this statute.