Petty v Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County Kathryn Wilcher
Dr. ZELPHIA BROWN
HRM510
02/3/13

What were the legal issues in this case?
In Petty v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County, the legal issue was about whether the employee had been honest and telling the truth on why he was discharged as an employee. Even though there are rules in place or acts in place when reemploying a returning Army employee, there are certain rules that have to be followed. Because certain rules in regards to postponement were not followed, this violated, the Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act or (USERRA), even though the delay was based on the employee’s alleged dishonesty.

Explain how the reemployment provisions of the USERRA were violated in this case.
The USERRA is in place to protect the rights of returning veterans when seeking re-employment upon return from service (Judicial Review, 2008). The reemployment provisions of the USERRA were violated in this case because Metro delayed re-hiring Petty by putting him through the return-to-work process. The department was also in violation because he was not given the position to which he was qualified. Explain why the court concludes that Petty has a claim for discrimination under USERRA.
The court concludes that Petty has a claim for discrimination under USERRA because he had satisfied the stipulations for reinstatement—his petition for re-employment was timely, and his discharge was “honorable”. However, Metro did not conform with the act’s requirement to quickly reinstate Petty to his former position. When Metro raised Petty’s alleged dishonesty as a defense, the appeals court responded by reminding Metro that USERRA allows an employer to terminate a former serviceman for “cause” after re-employment, but does not allow an employer to use that same