Milhauser V Minco Case Study

689 Words2 Pages

Milhauser v. Minco Products, Inc., 701 F.3d 268 (8th Cir. 2012).
Mr. Milhauser’s employment was terminated by Minco Product’s INC. as part of a workforce reduction in June of 2009. He filed suit for discrimination on the basis of military service and failure to provide reemployment as required by Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). His first motion was denied and he appealed only on the second claim. Verdict was in favor of Minco Products, INC in both suits.
Facts:
Mr. Milhauser was employed with Minco in 2006. Between 2007 and 2009 he served three military deployments. In 2008, Minco experienced a decline in orders continuing into 2009. Minco cut costs including delaying purchases, reducing overtime, and making pay cuts. Despite these measures, in March of 2009 Minco eliminated 18 positions. This process was not successful and did not abate the decline and it was determined that 32 more positional cuts would be made in June. These cuts were determined by job duties, technical expertise, with employee attitude and work ethic being considered; seniority not being a factor. On June 3, 2009, Mr. Milhauser was terminated as part of the cutbacks. He filed two claims, the first being Discrimination and the second, Failure to provide reemployment as required by the USERRA. His first claim denied, he appealed the second claim regarding the USERRA.
Issue:
Did Minco fail to provide proper reemployment to Mr. Milhauser upon his return as required by the USERRA?
Rule:
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301 et seq.,
38 U.S.C. § 4312. Reemployment rights of persons who serve in the uniformed services - any person whose absence from a position of employment is nec...

... middle of paper ...

...ploy him.
The summary judgment was consistent in properly applying the escalator principle within the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act and finds no basis for the plaintiff’s assertion of his continued employment. The plaintiff’s position would have indeed been terminated regardless of his military service (Title 38 United States Code, 1994).
Business Managerial Settings:
Discrimination has lasting effects on any business. Many laws protect against discrimination and workplace torts. In today’s business environment, we have many returning service-members seeking to assimilate back into their lives prior to service. Veterans are reentering the workforce with potentially far more skills and work experience than their civilian peers. As employers, we must assure we follow proper laws, regulations and support their return into the business community.

Open Document