The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion in US v. Alabama Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation on March 16, 2012. The key litigated issues were whether the Alabama Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (ADMH):

Roy Hamilton was an employee for the ADMH and was a member of the Alabama National Guard. In September 2003, the National Guard informed Hamilton that he was to be deployed at the end of December. Hamilton immediately informed his supervisor of his deployment.

During this time, the ADMH decided to close several of its mental health centers, including the one where Hamilton worked. Although Hamilton declined a transfer to a facility in another city for family reasons, he was assured by ADMH officials that they would continue to seek other jobs for him. Hamilton departed for military leave at the end of December 2003. The ADMH closed the facility where Hamilton worked in January 2004.

After being honorably discharged in April 2005, Hamilton sought reemployment with the ADMH, but he faced many delays and little response. The ADMH reemployed him in August 2007.

Hamilton filed a complaint under USERRA with the DOL in February 2008. The case was referred to the DOJ, which sued the ADMH. The district court found that the ADMH violated USERRA by not immediately rehiring Hamilton after his deployment and ordered the ADMH to pay Hamilton $25,000 in lost wages and benefits.

The Eleventh Circuit held that the ADMH:

Under USERRA, employers must promptly reemploy an employee who takes leave for military duties in his original or equivalent position if the employee:

(38 USC § 4312(a) (2010).)

The Eleventh Circuit held that ADMH violated USERRA and owed Hamilton $25,000 in damages for lost wages and benefits because Hamilton:

The court rejected the ADMH's argument that Hamilton's refusal to transfer to a different facility was the reason for his taking leave and constituted a resignation, stating that a combination of motives does not prevent a finding that he took leave for military service.

In an issue of first impression, the court also rejected the ADMH's sovereign immunity argument. The ADMH argued that Alabama was protected by sovereign immunity, claiming that even though the lawsuit was technically brought by the United States, Hamilton was the true plaintiff and therefore the suit was brought by a private individual. The court rejected this argument, holding that the United States:

Employers with employees who serve in the military should be aware of their obligations under USERRA, including the obligation to promptly rehire employees returning from qualifying military service. This case clarifies that an employee does not forfeit his reemployment rights under USERRA solely because he refuses to accept a transfer of employment to a different facility prior to beginning military service.