Petty v. Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County

Strayer University

Professor Jama Rand, PhD, SP

HRM510 Business Employment Law

August 7, 2011

What was the legal issue in this case? In Petty v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County, the legal issue was about whether the employee had been truthful about the reasons for his discharge from service. Another issue in the case was in regards to the postponement in re-employing a returning Army reservist, which violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), although the delay was based on the employee’s alleged dishonesty (Walsh, 2010). The US government has taken numerous steps to ensure that the employers to not discriminate when hiring, promoting or firing employees. According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) employers cannot discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Metro re-hired Petty but did not return him to his previous position of patrol sergeant or a substantially similar position. Petty was relegated to answering phone calls and occasionally taking police reports (Walsh, 2010). Metro’s Office of Professional Accountability conducted an investigation into whether Petty lied on his return-to-work paperwork by admitting that he faced military charges in Kuwait, but did not disclose that he was accused of giving alcohol to an enlisted soldier and of manufacturing alcohol. This investigation was closed after a lieutenant met with Petty and concluded that any allegation that Petty was untruthful on his paperwork was unfounded (Walsh, 2010).
Explain how the reemployment provisions of the USERRA were violated in this case. The central dispute in this case is whether Metro violated USERRA in its treatment of Petty, a former police officer who left the