Court Opinion

ID: 9400687
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-08 20:01:37.900281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:47.302221
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11621     Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 06/08/2023     Page: 1 of 21

                                                                 [PUBLISH]
                                     In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                          For the Eleventh Circuit

                            ____________________

                                  No. 22-11621
                            ____________________

        THADDAEUS MYRICK,
        in his oﬃcial capacity as Police Oﬃcer for the
        City of Hoover, Alabama,
        NICHOLAS D. BRADEN,
        in his oﬃcial capacity as Police Oﬃcer for the
        City of Hoover, Alabama,
        JESSIE POPEE,
        in his oﬃcial capacity as Police Oﬃcer for the
        City of Hoover, Alabama,
        KENNETH L. FOUNTAIN,
        in his oﬃcial capacity as Police Oﬃcer for the
        City of Hoover, Alabama,
                                                         Plaintiﬀs-Appellees,
        versus
USCA11 Case: 22-11621      Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 06/08/2023      Page: 2 of 21

        2                      Opinion of the Court                  22-11621

        CITY OF HOOVER, ALABAMA,

                                                       Defendant-Appellant.

                             ____________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Alabama
                      D.C. Docket No. 2:19-cv-01728-MHH
                            ____________________

        Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and CONWAY,∗ District
        Judge.
        CONWAY, District Judge:
               Military reservists play a vital role in our nation’s defense
        policy. When called to service, these men and women are expected
        to leave their civilian jobs, sometimes for years on end. To alleviate
        this burden, Congress enacted the Uniformed Services Employ-
        ment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). 38 U.S.C.
        § 4301(a). Under USERRA, employers must provide the same
        rights and benefits to employees on military leave that they provide
        to similarly situated employees on comparable forms of non-mili-
        tary leave. Id. § 4316(b)(1)(B).

        ∗ Honorable Anne C. Conway, United States District Judge for the Middle
        District of Florida, sitting by designation.
USCA11 Case: 22-11621     Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 06/08/2023    Page: 3 of 21

        22-11621              Opinion of the Court                        3

               Thaddaeus Myrick, Nicholas Braden, Jessie Popee, and Ken-
        neth Fountain (collectively, the Oﬃcers) worked as police oﬃcers
        for the City of Hoover, Alabama. They also served as military re-
        servists. Over a two-decade span, the Oﬃcers were summoned to
        active-duty service a combined thirteen times. While away, Hoover
        did not provide the Oﬃcers the same holiday pay and accrued ben-
        eﬁts that it gave employees on paid administrative leave. This dis-
        parate treatment prompted the Oﬃcers to sue Hoover under
        USERRA. And it led the district court to grant summary judgment
        for the Oﬃcers.
               Hoover asks us to reverse the district court’s judgment for
        two reasons. First, Hoover argues that the Oﬃcers are not similar
        to employees placed on paid administrative leave. Second, Hoover
        asserts that military leave is not comparable to paid administrative
        leave. We disagree on both points. Therefore, we aﬃrm.
                               I.     BACKGROUND

               We begin by describing the relevant portions of Hoover’s
        leave policy. We then turn to the events precipitating this lawsuit
        and the litigation that followed.
           A. Hoover allows employees on “paid status” to accrue ben-
              efits and collect holiday pay
              Hoover oﬀers its employees various beneﬁts, two of which
        are pertinent to this appeal. First, Hoover allows its employees to
        accrue diﬀerent types of leave and convert their accrued leave to
USCA11 Case: 22-11621        Document: 56-1        Date Filed: 06/08/2023       Page: 4 of 21

        4                        Opinion of the Court                     22-11621

        compensation. Second, Hoover aﬀords employees twelve paid hol-
        idays each year, equal to eight hours of pay per holiday.
               To qualify for these beneﬁts, Hoover employees must be on
        “paid status.” An employee is on paid status when he or she is on
        the payroll or using paid leave. If an employee is oﬀ the payroll and
        not using paid leave, Hoover places him or her on “unpaid status.”
        Employees on unpaid status do not accrue leave and do not collect
        holiday pay.
            B. Hoover caps accrued leave and holiday pay for employees
               on military leave
                Hoover offers military leave to employees absent for mili-
        tary service. Hoover provides 168 hours of paid military leave an-
        nually, and during those hours, military employees remain on paid
        status, continuing to accrue benefits and earn holiday pay. Once
        military employees exhaust those hours, they convert to unpaid
        status. 1 From that point forward, military employees accrue no
        benefits and collect no holiday pay until the new fiscal year, when
        Hoover awards another 168 hours of paid military leave.
            C. Hoover does not cap accrued leave and holiday pay for
               employees on paid administrative leave
              Hoover also provides paid administrative leave to its em-
        ployees. This form of leave requires authorization from the

        1
         After exhausting those 168 hours, military employees also have the option to
        use other forms of paid leave that they have accrued.
USCA11 Case: 22-11621      Document: 56-1     Date Filed: 06/08/2023     Page: 5 of 21

        22-11621               Opinion of the Court                        5

        employee’s supervisor, and if the leave exceeds thirty days, from
        Hoover’s mayor.
               Hoover permits paid administrative leave for various rea-
        sons, including jury duty, voting, inclement weather, promotional
        exams, court hearings, formal city hearings, “or other appropriate
        reasons.” Hoover has utilized that final, catch-all category to place
        employees on paid administrative leave while they are under inter-
        nal investigation. Investigative administrative leave serves a two-
        fold purpose. It allows Hoover to remove an employee under in-
        vestigation from the workforce without violating the Due Process
        Clause, and it protects the employee from hardship prior to a find-
        ing of wrongdoing. Employees on paid administrative leave remain
        on paid status—they collect a salary, accrue benefits, and take-
        home holiday pay.
                Paid administrative leave is typically short: absences caused
        by inclement weather usually last a few days, while absences for
        most other reasons average thirteen workdays. However, since
        1994, Hoover has placed at least three police department employ-
        ees on paid administrative leave lasting longer than 120 consecu-
        tive days. Each time, Hoover placed the employee on paid admin-
        istrative leave because the employee was under internal investiga-
        tion. Hoover put two employees on investigative administrative
        leave in 1997—the first for 440 days, and the second for 405 days.
        Hoover placed a third employee on investigative administrative
        leave for 599 days in 2012. Together, these three police officers
USCA11 Case: 22-11621     Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 06/08/2023    Page: 6 of 21

        6                     Opinion of the Court                 22-11621

        took investigative administrative leave for an average of sixteen
        months each.
            D. The Officers take military leave
               Officers Myrick, Braden, Popee, and Fountain worked for
        the Hoover Police Department while serving as military reservists.
        During the course of their employment, each Officer was called to
        active-duty service, either for training or deployment. As a result,
        each Officer took military leave under Hoover’s policy.
               The Alabama Army National Guard ordered Officer Myrick
        to active duty three times, all in 2017. He was called for training
        twice, for fifty-six days and fourteen days. That same year, the Na-
        tional Guard deployed Officer Myrick to Afghanistan for 377 days.
               Officer Braden also served in the Alabama Army National
        Guard, who called him for 122 days of training in 2011, and twenty-
        five days of training in 2018. Officer Braden was deployed to Af-
        ghanistan in 2017 for 354 days.
                Officer Popee, a member of the Alabama Air National
        Guard, was called to active-duty service six times. He was called
        for training three times: first for eighteen days in 1999, then for
        fifty-nine days in 2010, and lastly for seventy days in 2012. He was
        deployed another three times: for 607 days starting in 2001, 691
        days starting in 2004, and 426 days starting in 2008.
             Officer Fountain served in the United States Army Reserve.
        He was ordered to active-duty service for one year starting in 2007,
USCA11 Case: 22-11621       Document: 56-1       Date Filed: 06/08/2023      Page: 7 of 21

        22-11621                 Opinion of the Court                           7

        which the military extended annually until 2011, for a total of 1,752
        days.
           E. The Officers sue Hoover, and the district court grants
              summary judgment
               During their periods of service, each Officer exhausted their
        168 hours of annual paid military leave. As a result, Hoover con-
        verted each Officer to unpaid status. Once converted, the Officers
        accrued no benefits and earned no holiday pay while on military
        leave. In the meantime, Hoover provided those benefits to employ-
        ees on paid administrative leave. This disparity in benefits drove
        the Officers to sue Hoover under USERRA. Both parties moved for
        summary judgment, and the district court granted the Officers’
        motion. Hoover now appeals.
                           II.     STANDARD OF REVIEW

               This Court reviews a district court’s rulings on cross-mo-
        tions for summary judgment de novo, viewing “the facts in the
        light most favorable to the nonmoving party on each motion.”
        James River Ins. Co. v. Ultratec Special Effects Inc., 22 F.4th 1246, 1251
        (11th Cir. 2022). Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the mo-
        vant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
        and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
        Civ. P. 56(a).

                                   III.   DISCUSSION
USCA11 Case: 22-11621       Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 06/08/2023      Page: 8 of 21

        8                       Opinion of the Court                  22-11621

                USERRA is the latest in a long line of laws that protect em-
        ployees who serve in the military. Congress enacted USERRA to
        mitigate the employment disadvantages that stem from non-career
        military service. 38 U.S.C. § 4301(a)(1). In pursuit of this purpose,
        Congress imposed a number of obligations on employers and
        granted a number of entitlements to military employees. This ap-
        peal is about the obligations and entitlements in § 4316(b).
               Section 4316(b)(1) forces employers to give employees on
        military leave the same rights and benefits provided to similarly sit-
        uated employees on non-military leave:
               [A] person who is absent from a position of employ-
               ment by reason of service in the uniformed services
               shall be . . . entitled to such other rights and beneﬁts
               not determined by seniority as are generally provided
               by the employer of the person to employees having
               similar seniority, status, and pay who are on furlough
               or leave of absence . . . .

        Through this statute, Congress set forth a two-step process for de-
        termining which benefits are available to employees on military
        leave. First, the military employee must identify a group of non-
        military employees “having similar seniority, status, and pay who
        are on . . . leave of absence[.]” Id.; § 4316(b)(1)(B). Second, the mil-
        itary employee must prove that those employees took a form of
        non-military leave that is comparable to military leave. 20 C.F.R. §
        1002.150(b). A military employee who clears both hurdles is enti-
        tled to the same benefits that the similarly situated employees re-
        ceived while on the comparable form of leave.
USCA11 Case: 22-11621        Document: 56-1        Date Filed: 06/08/2023       Page: 9 of 21

        22-11621                 Opinion of the Court                              9

               The district court held that Hoover violated § 4316(b)(1)(B)
        when it provided benefits 2 to employees on paid administrative
        leave that it withheld from employees on military leave. Hoover
        challenges this conclusion on two fronts. First, Hoover argues that
        the district court mistakenly found the Officers similar to employ-
        ees on paid administrative leave, rather than employees on unpaid
        status and unpaid leave. Second, Hoover contends that the district
        court incorrectly concluded that military leave was comparable to
        paid administrative leave. We disagree with both of Hoover’s ar-
        guments.
            A. The Officers had a similar “status” and “pay” as Hoover
               employees on paid administrative leave
               Employees on military leave are only entitled to the rights
        and benefits provided to similarly situated employees. This limita-
        tion springs from USERRA’s text, which grants military employees
        the same benefits provided “to employees having similar seniority,
        status, and pay who are on . . . leave of absence[.]” § 4316(b)(1)(B).
               Seizing on the quoted language, Hoover argues that we
        must analyze an employee’s “status” and “pay” while he or she is
        on leave. While the Officers were on leave, Hoover placed them
        on unpaid status and provided them no pay. Thus, Hoover posits
        that they were similar to other employees on unpaid status and un-
        paid leave.

        2
         Neither party disputes that accrued leave and holiday pay are “benefits” un-
        der USERRA. 38 U.S.C. § 4303(2).
USCA11 Case: 22-11621        Document: 56-1         Date Filed: 06/08/2023         Page: 10 of 21

        10                         Opinion of the Court                       22-11621

               The trouble with Hoover’s interpretation is that the Depart-
        ment of Labor (DOL)—tasked by Congress with implementing
        USERRA—has rejected it. Id. § 4331(a). Indeed, the DOL issued
        regulations interpreting § 4316(b)(1)(B) to mean that benefits are
        “not dependent on how the employer characterizes the employee’s
        status during a period of [military] service.” 20 C.F.R. § 1002.149.
        Moreover, when the DOL promulgated its final rules, it considered
        and rejected a comment suggesting that it make the form of leave
        (paid or unpaid) a factor in the leave comparison. 70 Fed. Reg.
        75246, 75264 (Dec. 19, 2005) (stating that Congress found it “irrel-
        evant whether the non-military leave is paid or unpaid”).
                Thus, it is evident—as even Hoover admits—that the DOL
        considers an employee’s pay status during leave to have no legal
        significance under § 4316(b)(1)(B). The question, then, is whether
        we owe deference to the DOL’s interpretation. To answer that
        question, we turn to the two-step process set forth in Chevron
        U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). 3
        At step one, we ask whether Congress spoke to the precise question
        at issue. Id. at 842–43. At step two, we ask whether the agency’s
        interpretation of the statute is permissible. Id. Applying both steps,
        we conclude that the DOL’s interpretation of § 4316(b)(1)(B) de-
        serves deference.

        3
         The DOL’s interpretation is entitled to deference under Chevron because the
        regulations were promulgated using notice-and-comment procedures. U.S. v.
        Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 230–31 (2001); White v. United Airlines, Inc., 987 F.3d
        616, 620 (7th Cir. 2021).
USCA11 Case: 22-11621      Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 06/08/2023      Page: 11 of 21

        22-11621                Opinion of the Court                         11

             1.      Step One: Congress did not speak to the meaning of
                                    “status” and “pay”
               We begin with Chevron step one, which asks whether Con-
        gress spoke to the precise question at issue. Congress speaks to the
        question at issue when it unambigously expresses its intent
        through the statute. Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Inter-
        net Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 986 (2005). We are bound to apply Con-
        gress’s unambiguously expressed intent without regard to the
        agency’s interpretation. Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438,
        462 (2002). But if a statute is genuinely ambiguous, we proceed to
        Chevron step two. Autauga Cnty. Emergency Mgmt. Commc’n Dist. v.
        Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 17 F.4th 88, 98 (11th Cir. 2021).
                A statute is genuinely ambiguous when it is susceptible to
        more than one reasonable interpretation, even “after employing all
        the traditional tools of statutory construction.” Id. (quotation omit-
        ted). We check for ambiguity by examining the statute’s text, struc-
        ture, and history, and by applying the canons of construction.
        Hylton v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 992 F.3d 1154, 1158 (11th Cir. 2021); Friends
        of the Everglades v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 F.3d 1210, 1223
        (11th Cir. 2009). At step one, we may also consult the legislative
        history to decide whether Congress intended to speak to the pre-
        cise question at issue. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. United
        States, 566 F.3d 1257, 1273 (11th Cir. 2009); Guar. Fin. Servs., Inc. v.
        Ryan, 928 F.2d 994, 1004 (11th Cir. 1991).
              In this case, the precise question at issue is whether the
        words “status” and “pay” in § 4316(b)(1)(B) unambigously refer to
USCA11 Case: 22-11621      Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 06/08/2023      Page: 12 of 21

        12                      Opinion of the Court                  22-11621

        an employee’s status and pay during the period of leave. We find
        that they do not because a reasonable person could read those
        words as references to an employee’s general employment position
        and salary.
               We begin with the text. Our job is to interpret a statute
        based on the ordinary meaning of its text at the time that the stat-
        ute was enacted. Wis. Cent. Ltd. v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2067,
        2070 (2018). Dictionary definitions from the period of enactment
        often illuminate the ordinary usage of a statutory term. Lamar,
        Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, 138 S. Ct. 1752, 1759 (2018); United
        States v. Dawson, 64 F.4th 1227, 1236 (11th Cir. 2023). Here, Mer-
        riam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines “status” as a “posi-
        tion or rank in relation to others.” See Status, Merriam-Webster’s
        Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, at 1152 (9th ed. 1991). It defines the
        noun “pay” as something paid for a purpose, “especially as a salary
        or wage.” Id. at 864. Both definitions suggest that “status” and
        “pay” refer to an employee’s employment position and salary.
                Of course, the meaning of a word can vary depending on
        context. Here, Congress referenced “status” and “pay” in a statute
        that grants military members the same rights and benefits provided
        “to employees having similar seniority, status, and pay who are on . . .
        leave of absence.” § 4316(b)(1)(B) (emphasis added). Hoover argues
        that the italicized language unambiguously confines the meanings
        of “status” and “pay” to the period of leave. We disagree.
               A reasonable person could read the statute as imposing two
        limitations on the “employees” to whom we look for available
USCA11 Case: 22-11621      Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 06/08/2023      Page: 13 of 21

        22-11621                Opinion of the Court                         13

        benefits. First, the statute narrows the scope of “employees” to
        those with particular attributes—those “having similar seniority,
        status, and pay.” Then, the statute specifies that only a subset of
        these similarly situated employees are relevant for pinpointing the
        available benefits—those “who are on . . . leave of absence.” This
        latter limitation does not confine “status” and “pay” to the period
        of leave. To the contrary, the word “who” is a relative pronoun
        introducing a dependent clause that modifies the noun “em-
        ployee,” not the nouns “status” and “pay.” This limitation merely
        recognizes that an employee on military leave is not entitled to
        every benefit given to similarly situated employees, just those that
        are provided while the similarly situated employees are on leave.
        Accordingly, the language in § 4316(b)(1)(B) does not unambigu-
        ously limit the meaning of “status” and “pay” to the period of leave.
                Our conclusion is bolstered by the fact that Hoover’s inter-
        pretation would split the circuits. Guar. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Ryan, 928
        F.2d 994, 1003 n.3 (11th Cir. 1991) (“That the various courts that
        have already decided this question are split supports our conclusion
        that the statute is ambiguous.”). To date, the Seventh and Third
        Circuits have held that compensation during leave is a “right or ben-
        eﬁt” provided by § 4316(b)(1)(B). Travers v. Fed. Express Corp., 8 F.4th
        198, 204 (3d Cir. 2021); White v. United Airlines, Inc., 987 F.3d 616,
        621 (7th Cir. 2021). Because USERRA is designed to remedy diﬀer-
        ences in available “rights and beneﬁts,” we cannot use those diﬀer-
        ences to negate relief under section 4316(b)(1)(B). Tully v. Dep’t of
        Just., 481 F.3d 1367, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“To allow diﬀerences
        in the available beneﬁts to negate relief under section 4316(b)(1)(B)
USCA11 Case: 22-11621     Document: 56-1       Date Filed: 06/08/2023       Page: 14 of 21

        14                     Opinion of the Court                   22-11621

        would undermine the eﬀect of the statute, which is designed to
        remedy diﬀerences in the beneﬁts provided for military leave and
        leave for other purposes.”).
               But Hoover would have us do just that. The City seeks to
        contrast the Oﬃcers from other employees based on whether they
        received compensation while on leave. To diﬀerentiate on this ba-
        sis, we would have to break from our sister circuits and hold that
        compensation during leave is not a right or beneﬁt under the stat-
        ute. While we need not decide that issue today, the implications of
        Hoover’s interpretation serve as further proof that the statute is
        ambiguous. Ryan, 928 F.2d at 1003 n.3.
               Finally, to the extent that Congress spoke to the meaning of
        “status” and “pay,” USERRA’s legislative history indicates that it
        did so in a way that defeats Hoover’s interpretation. Miccosukee
        Tribe of Indians, 566 F.3d at 1274. Committee comments from the
        House of Representatives suggest that Congress did not intend to
        distinguish between various forms of non-military leave based on
        whether such leave was paid or unpaid:
              [T]o the extent the employer policy or practice varies
              among various types of non-military leaves of ab-
              sence, the most favorable treatment accorded any
              particular leave would also be accorded the military
              leave, regardless of whether the non-military leave is paid
              or unpaid.

        H.R. Rep. No. 103-65, pt. 1, at 33–34 (1993) (emphasis added). The
        DOL relied on this legislative history when it rejected a comment
USCA11 Case: 22-11621      Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 06/08/2023     Page: 15 of 21

        22-11621               Opinion of the Court                         15

        that suggested making the form of leave (paid or unpaid) a relevant
        factor in the leave comparison, deeming it “irrelevant” in the eyes
        of Congress. 70 Fed. Reg. at 75264. Thus, to the extent Congress
        spoke to the meaning of “status” and “pay,” the legislative history
        suggests that it did so in a way that defeats Hoover’s interpretation.
               For those reasons, the words “status” and “pay” in
        § 4316(b)(1)(B) are ambiguous at best. We now proceed to Chevron
        step two.
            2.     Step Two: The DOL permissibly interpreted the terms
                                  “status” and “pay”
                At step two, we readily conclude that the DOL’s interpreta-
        tion of “status” and “pay” is permissible. An agency’s interpreta-
        tion of a statute is permissible—deserving of deference—if it is rea-
        sonable in light of the statutory scheme. In re Gateway Radiology
        Consultants, P.A., 983 F.3d 1239, 1256 (11th Cir. 2020) (“An interpre-
        tation is reasonable if it is rational and consistent with the stat-
        ute.”). The DOL concluded that an employee’s entitlement to ben-
        eﬁts under § 4316(b)(1)(B) “is not dependent on how the employer
        characterizes the employee’s status during a period of service.” 20
        C.F.R. § 1002.149. This interpretation is reasonable in light of
        USERRA’s statutory scheme.
               The Supreme Court has long admonished courts to con-
        strue statutes protecting veterans liberally for the beneﬁt of the vet-
        eran. Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 U.S. 275, 285
        (1946). Congress adopted this rule of construction when it enacted
        USERRA. Clarkson v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 59 F.4th 424, 429 (9th Cir.
USCA11 Case: 22-11621        Document: 56-1         Date Filed: 06/08/2023         Page: 16 of 21

        16                         Opinion of the Court                       22-11621

        2023). Thus, when two plausible interpretations of USERRA ex-
        ist—one denying beneﬁts, the other protecting the veteran—we
        must choose the interpretation that protects the veteran. Travers, 8
        F.4th at 208 n.25 (“[A]ny interpretive doubt is construed in favor of
        the service member, under the pro-veteran canon.”). In this case,
        the word “status” could refer to an employee’s job position, or to
        the way the employer classiﬁes the employee while on leave. The
        DOL selected the former interpretation, which prevents employers
        from skirting USERRA’s protections by mischaracterizing military
        leave. Cf. § 1002.149; 70 Fed. Reg. at 75263. This interpretation
        aligns with USERRA’s purpose and scheme. Therefore, it is permis-
        sible.
               Because we must defer to the DOL’s interpretation of
        § 4316(b)(1)(B), we find that the words “status” and “pay” do not
        refer to an employee’s pay status while on leave.4 Instead, we in-
        terpret those words the way they are ordinarily understood in the
        employment context—as references to an employee’s position and
        salary. Both parties proceed on the assumption that the Officers

        4
         Hoover relies heavily on a California district court opinion to support its in-
        terpretation—Elliott v. City of Anaheim, No. 8:12-cv-736-CJC-MLG, 2015 WL
        13918896 (C.D. Cal. July 21, 2015). But that case is not persuasive. The court
        in Elliot did not cite or consider the DOL regulation interpreting §
        4316(b)(1)(B) as “not dependent on how the employer characterizes the em-
        ployee’s status during a period of service.” 20 C.F.R. § 1002.149. Nor did the
        court engage with the text of § 4316(b)(1)(B). Moreover, Elliott came down
        before two different circuit courts held that compensation during leave is a
        benefit under USERRA. Travers, 8 F.4th at 203; White, 987 F.3d at 621. Elliott is
        not persuasive.
USCA11 Case: 22-11621        Document: 56-1         Date Filed: 06/08/2023        Page: 17 of 21

        22-11621                  Opinion of the Court                               17

        held a position and received a salary similar to employees who
        were placed on paid administrative leave. Our next step, then, is to
        determine whether paid administrative leave and military leave are
        comparable.
        B.      Military leave is comparable to paid administrative leave
               Employees absent for military service are entitled to the
        most favorable treatment provided to non-military employees on
        any “comparable form of leave.” 20 C.F.R. § 1002.150(b). Three
        factors inform our comparison between leaves: (1) the duration of
        the leave, (2) the purpose of the leave, and (3) the ability of employ-
        ees to choose when to take the leave. § 1002.150(c). The district
        court found military leave comparable to paid administrative leave
        in terms of purpose and control, but “minimally comparable” in
        terms of duration. Despite this durational difference, the district
        court ultimately held that the leaves were comparable.
               We agree with most aspects of the district court’s thoughtful
        order. Starting with purpose, we find that military leave and paid
        administrative leave serve similar ends. For one, both enable Hoo-
        ver to comply with the law. In its initial brief, Hoover acknowl-
        edged that it provides investigate administrative leave to comply
        with the Due Process Clause,5 and at oral argument, it recognized
        that Alabama law compels it to provide paid leave for jury duty.

        5
         The Due Process Clause does not always require notice and a hearing before
        an officer is suspended without pay. Gilber v. Homar, 520 U.S. 925, 932–33
        (1997). Still, Hoover says that investigative administrative leave is its chosen
        method for providing due process.
USCA11 Case: 22-11621        Document: 56-1         Date Filed: 06/08/2023        Page: 18 of 21

        18                        Opinion of the Court                       22-11621

        Likewise, Hoover provides military leave to comply with
        USERRA. Moreover, both forms of leave are intended to shield em-
        ployees from unnecessary hardship. According to Hoover’s Hu-
        man Resources Director, the City provides paid administrative
        leave during internal investigations to protect employees from
        hardship prior to a finding of wrongdoing. Similarly, USERRA aims
        to alleviate the employment-related hardships that stem from mil-
        itary service. 38 U.S.C. § 4301(a)(1). Military leave and paid admin-
        istrative leave serve comparable purposes.
               The two forms of leave are also similar in terms of control.
        This factor accounts for an employee’s ability to choose when to
        take the leave. § 1002.150(c). Military employees do not control
        when they will be summoned for active-duty service, just as non-
        military employees do not control when Hoover will launch an in-
        vestigation and place them on administrative leave. Hence, em-
        ployees taking military leave have a similar lack of control as those
        on investigative administrative leave. 6
                That leaves the final factor—duration. 20 C.F.R. §
        1002.150(b). The district court analyzed this factor by grouping mil-
        itary leave and paid administrative leave into two categories based
        on length—short-term leave and long-term leave. In the short-

        6
         Hoover argues that the leaves differ somewhat as to control because military
        employees can volunteer for military assignments. But nothing in the record
        suggests that such opportunities were available to the Officers. And even if the
        Officers had volunteered for certain military assignments, it is not clear that
        they could have chosen when to take leave to perform those assignments.
USCA11 Case: 22-11621       Document: 56-1        Date Filed: 06/08/2023        Page: 19 of 21

        22-11621                 Opinion of the Court                             19

        term-leave category, the court placed military leave for training
        and administrative leave for brief events like jury duty. It con-
        cluded that short-term military leave lasted three times longer
        (thirty-seven days) than short-term administrative leave (thirteen
        days). In the long-term-leave category, the district court placed mil-
        itary leave for deployment and investigative administrative leave.
        It found that both lasted, on average, sixteen months.
               The district court ultimately concluded that military leave
        was not comparable in duration to paid administrative leave be-
        cause the three-to-one difference between short-term military
        leave and short-term administrative leave was significant. In reach-
        ing this decision, the district court disregarded the similarity be-
        tween military leave for deployment and investigative administra-
        tive leave, labeling the long-term leaves “outliers.” We see things
        differently.
                We do not view the instances of investigative administrative
        leave as outliers. Instead, they set the upper strata of paid adminis-
        trative leave that Hoover was willing to provide its employees. See
        Clarkson, 59 F.4th at 435–36 (considering as relevant evidence a
        comparison between the longest instance of military leave and the
        longest instance of non-military leave). These instances demon-
        strate that Hoover was inclined to provide paid administrative leave
        for up to around sixteen months—the same average length as the
        longest instances of military leave.7 Had the Oﬃcers been placed

        7
         The district court did not consider Officer Fountain’s military leave when
        calculating the average length of deployment. Fountain was ordered to active-
USCA11 Case: 22-11621        Document: 56-1         Date Filed: 06/08/2023        Page: 20 of 21

        20                        Opinion of the Court                       22-11621

        on paid administrative leave instead of military leave, they would
        have received holiday pay and accrued beneﬁts for each period of
        service, including those shorter than sixteen months. So, the dis-
        trict court should have found the two forms of leave comparable in
        duration.8 See Tully, 481 F.3d at 1369–70 (stating that the duration
        inquiry reﬂects an equality principle that entitles veterans to the
        same beneﬁts they would have earned had they not left for military
        service, but for some other reason). Nevertheless, the district court
        ultimately held that the leaves were comparable, and it granted
        summary judgment to the Oﬃcers. Because the district court
        reached the correct conclusion, we aﬃrm.
                                    IV.     CONCLUSION

        duty service for one year starting in 2007, which the military extended annu-
        ally until 2011, totaling 1,752 days. The district court was unsure whether to
        regard this leave as a single period, or multiple one-year periods. Because
        Fountain was absent for active-duty service in the United States military for a
        continuous, uninterrupted period of service, we conclude that his leave is best
        viewed as a single period. Nevertheless, even if we added Officer Fountain’s
        abnormal, one-off absence into the mix of military leaves, the longest instances
        of military leave (on average, twenty-one months) would still be similar to the
        longest average instances of investigative administrative leave (sixteen
        months).
        8
          Beyond the three enumerated factors in section 1002.150(c)—duration, pur-
        pose, and control—Hoover cites other unenumerated factors to support its
        position. But because the three enumerated factors favor the Officers, the un-
        enumerated factors do not change the outcome. Clarkson, 59 F.4th at 436
        (“[T]he factors enumerated in the regulation should be weighed most heavily
        when considering whether two leaves are comparable.”).
USCA11 Case: 22-11621     Document: 56-1     Date Filed: 06/08/2023    Page: 21 of 21

        22-11621              Opinion of the Court                       21

               Hoover violated § 4316(b)(1)(B) by not providing the Offic-
        ers the same benefits on military leave that it afforded similar em-
        ployees on paid administrative leave. We affirm the district court’s
        order granting the Officers’ motion for summary judgment.
              AFFIRMED.