Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Employment Protections for the Citizen-Soldier

By Dan L. Hargrove
December 01, 2003

Throughout its history, the United States has opposed a standing professional military. Instead, our nation has structured its armed forces so that our national security heavily relies upon reservists, particularly after Vietnam. Since 9/11 alone, nearly 200,000 reservists have been mobilized, with thousands more expected to be so. And many of those reservists who completed their initial mobilization were later remobilized for a second time. In a dramatic departure from the past, the Defense Department has begun deploying Guardsman to such places as the Balkans, the Sinai, Iraq, and almost everywhere else the regular forces go.

Many of these mobilized citizen-soldiers have valuable skills that are of particular use to the military. After major military operations came to a close in Iraq and the mission evolved into one of stabilizing the country, police officers were in high demand. The military then reached out to reservists with this skill set and mobilized them, which in turn created a labor shortage for some local police departments. Employers often find themselves stuck between competing interests: running their business versus “supporting the troops.” This tension is often a source of employment disputes.

When mobilized, these citizen-soldiers leave behind families and careers. To mitigate this hardship, Congress enacted the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA or Act), which provides reemployment protection and other benefits for employees who are called to military service. Because of its broad protections and remedies, HR professionals are well advised to ensure that their employers are in compliance with the Act.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?