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

piddling v. metropolitan Govt of Nashville & Davidson County - Research Paper ExampleThe case also composite Petty, who was a former Police Officer forced out of the Metro Police Department because of active duty mobilization in American array Reserve. In fact, there were issues that contributed to the case proceeding to court. After returning from active duty, there was a delay in his reemployment request, whereby it exceeded the stipulated duration in relation to operation process. Moreover, Petty was not rehired under the shoes of patrol sergeant or any equivalent based on the information provided after completion of return-to-work form. Nevertheless, he failed to disclose the facts, which would justify discharge from the Army. Furthermore, there is a policy in Metropolitan Police Department that regard to return-to-work form, which indicates that returnees offices are required to argue in situations where they have been a way for a period. 2. Explain how the reemployment pr ovisions of the USERRA were violated in this case. The aim of USERRA provisions is to provide protection of veterans rights during the process of pursuance re-employment in order to return to service. These provisions focus on the military services and protection against discrimination concerning reemployment. In fact, they offer protection to the military and reserves in a way that prevents cases of losing of employment, relegation, losing of precedence, and loss of benefits in a situation of being called to active duty (United States Court of Appeals, 2012). There is a substantial discrimination between USERRA with other laws that protects discrimination against employment and the breadth and potency aimed at protection. In this case, the mandatory reemployment imposes restrictions and prohibition against discrimination and retaliation. In this case, there is a intrusion of the USERRA provisions by Metropolitan Police Department through the delay involved in re-hiring the Petty in the process of return-to-work (Oubre, 2012). Moreover, the department violates the provisions by denying Petty a position, which he had met the standards and qualification. Therefore, the Metropolitan Police Department has been evidently depicted in their violation against USERRA concerning the provision of reemployment. 3. Explain why the court concludes that Petty has a claim for discrimination under USERRA. There is a conclusion by the court indicating that Petty has a claim for the allegations of discrimination by Metropolitan Police Department based on employment. In fact, this conclusion is made by the court based on the stipulations made by USERRA concerning doctorment after petitioning for by the way re-employment and discharge (U.S. Department of Labor, 2013). In this case, failure of the Metropolitan Police Department to conform with requirements of the act, which expected them to conduct a quick reinstatement of Petty to his former position led to this conclusion. A fter the allegations by Metro against Pettys dishonesty, there was a response by the court, which was aimed at reminding them about USERRA. Moreover, these provisions stipulate the government agency of employers to terminate a former service member for cause after re-employment. Nevertheless, this is not applicable for an employer to use this as a basis for failing to reinstate a former servi