Labor: Potential employment issues related to hiring veterans
As of mid-2012, more than 1.6 million veterans had returned from Iraq and Afghanistan. Veteran unemployment rates regularly track at more than twice the national average.
September 24, 2012 at 07:48 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
As of mid-2012, more than 1.6 million veterans had returned from Iraq and Afghanistan. Veteran unemployment rates regularly track at more than twice the national average. Economic incentives to hire these returning service members include the Returning Heroes Tax Credit (which offers businesses a maximum tax credit of $5,600 per veteran hired) and the Wounded Warriors Tax Credit (which offers businesses that hire veterans with service disabilities a maximum tax credit of $9,600 per veteran). The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has a special initiative, “Hiring our Heroes”; the White House has obtained commitments from many of the largest U.S. employers to hire and accommodate returning veterans and their families, and several large job search companies have pledged to offer special assistance to veterans and military spouses with job matching services. This column is meant to address some of the most common workplace issues of which employers should be mindful in the context of hiring and employing returning service members. Failure to abide by these guidelines can expose employers to fines, penalties and civil litigation, as well as bad publicity arising from allegations of improper workplace practices concerning veterans.
Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination based on military service. Returning veterans often are perceived as, and may indeed have, different education and experience than those of other applicants or employees in the same positions. Many return from service with fewer years of traditional education than those they are competing against in a tight economy. Employers may incorrectly assume that long periods of military service translate into a lack of private sector skills and experience, including a perceived inability to adjust to corporate culture. If these perceptions color hiring decisions, employers will be exposed to potential discrimination suits.
Federal law also provides some protections for returning veterans who were employed at the time of their initial deployment. The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) requires employers to reemploy returning service members with the same seniority, status and pay, as well as other rights and benefits determined by seniority. If the service member cannot qualify for this position, the employer must provide alternative reemployment positions. Employers also must make reasonable efforts to enable returning service members to refresh or upgrade their skills to help them qualify for reemployment. Such reinstatement or accommodation rights are rarely available for other categories of employees following long absences from the workplace.
Both the Americans with Disabilities Act and USERRA require employers to make reasonable efforts to accommodate veterans with disabilities. Nearly 45 percent of the returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are seeking compensation for service-related injuries. Many of the injuries may qualify as disabilities under the law. Service members recovering from injuries received during service or training may have up to two years after completing service to return to their jobs or apply for reemployment. Employers need to carefully plan how, or whether, they are able to accommodate these returning service members and still effectively operate their businesses.
Finally, in this age of free speech and strong feelings about recent military conflicts, employers need to be conscious of how political or personal comments or communications might be construed as being directed at the veteran's individual capabilities or morals. Dakota Meyer, the first living Marine to receive the Medal of Honor since the Vietnam War, sued his civilian employer for defamation and wrongful termination after his supervisor allegedly made comments belittling his service. One can easily imagine how political discussion in the presence of a returning veteran could feel personal, and create risk.
Given their military training, veterans have an innate respect for procedure, are disciplined, perform well under pressure and exhibit extraordinary leadership skills. Returning veterans offer tangible job benefits and often have positive impact on morale. By giving equal employment opportunities to our veterans, employers can demonstrate the appreciation that returning servicemembers deserve. Good corporate citizenship requires a conscious regard for all employees' rights; veterans are no different.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGOP Now Holds FTC Gavel, but Dems Signal They'll Be a Rowdy Minority
6 minute readFired by Trump, EEOC's First Blind GC Lands at Nonprofit Targeting Abuses of Power
3 minute readTrump's Inspectors General Purge Could Make Policy Changes Easier, Observers Say
Trending Stories
- 1Eighth Circuit Determines No Standing for Website User Concerned With Privacy Who Challenged Session-Replay Technology
- 2Superior Court Re-examines Death of a Party Pending a Divorce Action
- 3Chicago Law Requiring Women, Minority Ownership Stake in Casinos Is Unconstitutional, New Suit Claims
- 4GOP Now Holds FTC Gavel, but Dems Signal They'll Be a Rowdy Minority
- 5Houston-Based Law Firm Overcomes Defamation Suit for Website Warning
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250