Enter to open, tab to navigate, enter to select
USERRA Plaintiffs Need Not Prove Objective Qualifications in Failure to Promote Claim: Third Circuit
Practical Law Legal Update w-005-0292 (Approx. 4 pages)
USERRA Plaintiffs Need Not Prove Objective Qualifications in Failure to Promote Claim: Third Circuit
by Practical Law Labor & Employment
| Published on 20 Dec 2016 • USA (National/Federal) |
In Carroll v. Delaware River Port Auth., the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that in a failure to promote discrimination suit under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), a plaintiff is not required to plead and prove that he was objectively qualified for the position he sought.
On December 12, 2016, in Carroll v. Delaware River Port Auth., the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit answered a legal question certified to it by the district court and found that a plaintiff alleging discriminatory failure to promote under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) is not required to plead and prove that he was objectively qualified for the position sought ( (3d Cir. Dec. 12, 2016)).
Delaware Port Authority (DPA) officer Anthony Carroll sued his employer under USERRA, alleging that he was not promoted to sergeant due to unlawful discrimination on the basis of his military service, which included a tour in Iraq and multiple injuries sustained during active duty (38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4335). On a motion for summary judgment, which was denied by the district court, DPA argued that Carroll must raise a triable issue of fact on whether he was objectively qualified for the promotion to sergeant.
The Third Circuit:
- Held that in a failure to promote discrimination suit under USERRA, a plaintiff need not plead and prove that the plaintiff was objectively qualified for the position sought.
- Noted that:
- USERRA prohibits discrimination in employment based on an individual's military service;
- a plaintiff meets his initial burden by showing that military service was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment action, but need not prove that he is objectively qualified for the position to meet the initial USERRA burden (see NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983));
- all circuit courts interpreting USERRA have held that a plaintiff meets his initial burden simply by showing that military service was "a substantial or motivating factor" in the adverse employment action (see for example, Angiuoni v. Town of Billerica, 838 F.3d 34, 39 (1st Cir. 2016); Bradberry v. Jefferson Cty., Tex., 732 F.3d 540, 547 (5th Cir. 2013); Bobo v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 665 F.3d 741, 755 (6th Cir. 2012); Madden v. Rolls Royce Corp., 563 F.3d 636, 638 (7th Cir. 2009); Wallace v. City of San Diego, 479 F.3d 616, 624 (9th Cir. 2006); Maxfield v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 427 F.3d 544, 551 (8th Cir. 2005); Coffman v. Chugach Support Servs., Inc., 411 F.3d 1231, 1239 (11th Cir. 2005); Hill v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 252 F.3d 307, 312 (4th Cir. 2001); Gummo v. Vill. of Depew, N.Y., 75 F.3d 98, 106 (2d Cir. 1996)); and
- once the initial burden is met by the USERRA plaintiff, a defendant can offer the plaintiff's lack of qualification as a potential affirmative defense for why the employment action was not discriminatory.
- Distinguished other anti-discrimination statutes like Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA, which require an initial showing that the plaintiff is objectively qualified for the position sought under the McDonnell Douglas framework, because USERRA claims are instead analyzed under the Transportation Management framework.
- Remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Third Circuit's opinion.