Court Opinion

ID: 9478214
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:43:13.918674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:18.242759
License: Public Domain

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The court today recognizes that the statute is to be construed liberally for the benefit of those who serve their country, but abruptly departs from this goal and erects an unduly burdensome requirement for the returning veteran.
The district court analyzed the requirement placed on the veteran in a practical and common-sense fashion and in full accord with the intention of the statute. It held that plaintiff had made application for reemployment within the meaning of the statute when he traveled to defendant’s plant, presented himself at the proper place to make application, and requested a for*441mal written application form. He was not given the application. He later called the plant asking to speak to the personnel manager and the plant manager, who knew he had gone into the Navy, but was again rebuffed.
We should not require more.