Notices

$6m to 1160 veterans

Old 05-20-2014, 11:01 AM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
APC225's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Default $6m to 1160 veterans

LCAL? LUAL? Both?

United Airlines settles USERRA case for $6M | Navy Times | navytimes.com

United Airlines has agreed to a $6 million settlement with Reserve component service members who said the company was underpaying pension benefits to employees who mobilized for duty in the National Guard and reserves.

The deal announced Tuesday is one of the largest class-action settlements in the history of the 1994 federal law that prohibits civilian employers from discriminating against reservists who are mobilized, known as the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, or USERRA.

United Airlines will pay several thousand dollars each to about 1,160 reservists, most of them pilots, who were called up for active-duty service for more than 30 days between 2000 and 2010 while working for the airline.

At issue was United’s contributions to the employees’ 401(k) pension accounts. Under USERRA, companies must continue to provide health and retirement benefits during reservists’ military service, including routine contributions to retirement accounts.

United Airlines was providing mobilized reservists with pension contributions that were too small, calculating the amount based on a minimum wage for union employees rather than the individual employees’ actual salaries or wages immediately prior to deployment, according to a lawsuit filed by the employees.

“This settlement sends a strong message that veterans will band together and take collective action when their rights are violated or denied by their employer,” said Peter Romer-Friedman, an attorney who represented the reservists, with the Washington-based law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll.

A spokesman for United Airlines did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the settlement.

The settlement highlights concerns inside the Pentagon as the number of Reserve mobilizations soared at the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Military officials had feared that private-sector employers would get fed up with reservists getting called up for duty and abruptly leaving their civilian jobs.

But according to an internal Pentagon survey of more than 10,000 employers that was released last year, most companies do not have major concerns about hiring reservists and making the special accommodations required for part-time troops to fulfill their military responsibilities.

The survey found that most employers say the absence of reservists from the workplace for training and mobilizations had only a “small or modest” impact on their business operations or no impact at all.

The United Airlines settlement also underscores USERRA’s role in protecting individual reservists.

“It’s absolutely essential to have a strong re-employment rights law to make sure we have people who are willing to serve in the Guard and Reserve,” Romer-Friedman said.
APC225 is offline  
Old 05-20-2014, 03:43 PM
  #2  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 60
Default

Great question. Hoping for Mil Alpa rep to weigh in on this and which side it applies to. Crossing fingers for both.
tmac3333 is offline  
Old 05-20-2014, 06:29 PM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Position: 747 Captain, retired
Posts: 928
Default

Originally Posted by APC225 View Post
LCAL? LUAL? Both?

United Airlines settles USERRA case for $6M | Navy Times | navytimes.com

United Airlines has agreed to a $6 million settlement with Reserve component service members who said the company was underpaying pension benefits to employees who mobilized for duty in the National Guard and reserves.

The deal announced Tuesday is one of the largest class-action settlements in the history of the 1994 federal law that prohibits civilian employers from discriminating against reservists who are mobilized, known as the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, or USERRA.

United Airlines will pay several thousand dollars each to about 1,160 reservists, most of them pilots, who were called up for active-duty service for more than 30 days between 2000 and 2010 while working for the airline.

At issue was United’s contributions to the employees’ 401(k) pension accounts. Under USERRA, companies must continue to provide health and retirement benefits during reservists’ military service, including routine contributions to retirement accounts.

United Airlines was providing mobilized reservists with pension contributions that were too small, calculating the amount based on a minimum wage for union employees rather than the individual employees’ actual salaries or wages immediately prior to deployment, according to a lawsuit filed by the employees.

“This settlement sends a strong message that veterans will band together and take collective action when their rights are violated or denied by their employer,” said Peter Romer-Friedman, an attorney who represented the reservists, with the Washington-based law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll.

A spokesman for United Airlines did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the settlement.

The settlement highlights concerns inside the Pentagon as the number of Reserve mobilizations soared at the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Military officials had feared that private-sector employers would get fed up with reservists getting called up for duty and abruptly leaving their civilian jobs.

But according to an internal Pentagon survey of more than 10,000 employers that was released last year, most companies do not have major concerns about hiring reservists and making the special accommodations required for part-time troops to fulfill their military responsibilities.

The survey found that most employers say the absence of reservists from the workplace for training and mobilizations had only a “small or modest” impact on their business operations or no impact at all.

The United Airlines settlement also underscores USERRA’s role in protecting individual reservists.

“It’s absolutely essential to have a strong re-employment rights law to make sure we have people who are willing to serve in the Guard and Reserve,” Romer-Friedman said.
This is shameful. What was United Thinking? Shortchanging OUR Vets? Who even thinks of doing this? Shame on you United!
krudawg is offline  
Old 05-20-2014, 07:59 PM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Default

............nevermind, it's just not worth commenting on this place anymore.
SpecialTracking is offline  
Old 05-20-2014, 11:30 PM
  #5  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Posts: 34
Default

This was mainly a s-ual deal, at least that was implied by the paperwork that was sent out a few months ago since the dates in question were premerger. Most guys affected should have received paperwork on their respective amount that they would be awarded.
Madmagpilot is offline  
Old 05-21-2014, 05:03 AM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
APC225's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Default

Originally Posted by krudawg View Post
This is shameful. What was United Thinking? Shortchanging OUR Vets? Who even thinks of doing this? Shame on you United!
Must have been in competition to see who was worse. Some LCAL pilots still have litigation going on. Latest is the Fifth Circuit Court agreed that there may been a "hostile work environment" at LCAL but USERRA doesn't cover that.
-----------
Fifth Circuit Rejects USERRA Hostile Work Environment Claims by Group of Continental Airlines Pilots | Bracewell & Giuliani Mobile

On March 22, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Carder v. Continental Airlines, Inc., ruling that there is no cause of action for hostile work environment or harassment under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), which prohibits discrimination against employees who serve in the uniformed services. The Fifth Circuit is the first court of appeals to expressly address this issue.

Facts

Continental was sued by a group of its pilots who were also members of the Air National Guard and the Reserves. The pilots alleged that the airline had violated USERRA by subjecting them to a hostile work environment and harassment because of their military service obligations. For example, they complained that Continental managers made derisive comments to them such as:

-- "If you guys take more than three or four days a month in military leave, you’re just taking advantage of the system."

-- “I used to be guard guy, so I know the scams you guys are running."

-- It’s getting really difficult to hire you military guys because you’re taking so much military leave."

-- “You need to choose between CAL and the Navy."

The Fifth Circuit:

Refused to recognize a hostile work environment or harassment claim under USERRA because USERRA does not expressly provide for such claims and the language in USERRA is very different from that in other non-discrimination laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), where hostile work environment and harassment claims have been recognized.

Reasoned that Title VII and the ADA prohibit discrimination against historically disadvantaged minorities with respect to the "terms, conditions, or privileges of employment." In contrast, USERRA does not speak in terms of "conditions" of employment, but uses the more narrow language “any benefit of employment." Also, there is no indication that Congress considered members of the uniformed services to be a historically disadvantaged minority that needed special protection.

Concluded that if a service member suffers harassment to such a degree that it makes the workplace intolerable or otherwise adversely affects a benefit of employment, then the service member will have a claim against his/her employer for constructive discharge or other claim based on discrimination. Therefore, recognition of a hostile work environment or harassment claim under USERRA is unnecessary.

Last edited by APC225; 05-21-2014 at 05:45 AM.
APC225 is offline  
Old 05-21-2014, 05:08 AM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
APC225's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Default

Because of the Fifth Circuit's ruling new law was even passed amending USERRA to cover a "hostile work environment."
----------
Legal Alert: USERRA Expanded to Include Hostile Work Environment Claims - Ford Harrison - Labor and Employment Attorneys

The new law was passed with bipartisan support and is intended to reduce unemployment rates for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars by helping hundreds of thousands of unemployed veterans get back into the workforce. However, the provision of VOW which broadens the scope of USERRA to include a claim for hostile work environment is garnering a lot of attention. Previously it was unclear whether USERRA provided coverage for claims of harassment and hostile work environment based on military status. Until March 22, 2011, some federal courts were reluctant to address hostile work environment claims under USERRA. The Supreme Court had not addressed the issue, most district courts were divided on the question and only a few circuit courts assumed that hostile work environment was a legitimate claim under USERRA. Then, on March 22, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision in Carder v. Continental Airlines, which held that USERRA, unlike Title VII, did not provide for a hostile work environment claim because the statute did not include the phrase "the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" in its definition of benefits of employment. Less than nine months later, Congress amended USERRA, adding the same language used in Title VII, expressing its disagreement with what the Fifth Circuit did in the Carder case.

Last edited by APC225; 05-21-2014 at 05:29 AM.
APC225 is offline  
Old 05-21-2014, 05:12 AM
  #8  
New Hire
 
Joined APC: May 2014
Posts: 9
Default

It really got me thinking
makroftar is offline  
Old 05-21-2014, 05:17 AM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
APC225's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Default

It may even go to the top.

The PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI to the Supreme Court.

http://law.psu.edu/_file/Civil_Right...nt_Version.pdf

As a direct result of their military service and corresponding absence at work, Petitioners have been subjected to Respondent's continuous pattern of harassment directed at and based upon Petitioners' military service. As alleged in Petitioners' complaint, Respondent's harassing conduct and comments towards Petitioners have included the following:

1. Placing onerous restrictions on taking military leave and arbitrarily attempting to cancel military leave.

2. Respondent's disapproval and denial of military leave notices.

3. Phone calls to pilots' homes while off duty in order to question pilots about their military leave.

4. Comments by Respondent's managerial employees, such as:

� “If you guys take more than three or four days a month of military leave, you're just taking advantage of the system.”

� “We don't hire part-time pilots. Their first commitment is to CAL [Continental Airlines].”

� “I'm trying to run a business here, and if you're only available to me half the time, then I have to hire another half an em-ployee to make up for you.”

� “I used to be a Guard guy, so I know the scams you guys are running.”

� “Continental is your big boss, the Guard is your little boss.”

� “You don't do anything but protect the state of Michigan against the Canadians” in response to a Michigan Air National Guardsman's request for military leave.

� “You take too much military leave.”

� “Continental is not happy with many military reservists right now. Short notice orders and short notice requests screw up their staffing formula and any short notice issues (in some cases 50 days notice) will throw a monkey wrench in PBS [preferential bidding system].”

� “You need to choose between CAL and the Navy”

Last edited by APC225; 05-21-2014 at 05:46 AM.
APC225 is offline  
Old 05-21-2014, 05:23 AM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
APC225's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Default

To let it get this far and not somehow handle it internally is as tone deaf as "labor is not needed for this merger." Not a clue.
APC225 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
missintheline
Major
8
11-11-2013 03:56 AM
Sata 4000 RP
Military
0
03-13-2013 09:09 AM
USMCFLYR
Military
31
11-28-2011 05:00 PM
Elvis90
Military
2
11-11-2010 09:25 AM
captain_drew
Cargo
18
06-22-2006 04:34 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices