Brian Petty v. Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville
687 F.3d 710
6th Cir.2012Background
- USERRA case reemerging in Sixth Circuit after remand; Petty claims Metro violated reemployment and discrimination provisions upon his return from Army duty.
- Petty originally worked for Metro as police officer since 1991, rose to patrol sergeant, and moonlighted as security guard.
- Petty’s Army service in 2003–2005 led to a deployment and, after an alleged incident in Kuwait, an honorable discharge marked with a court-martial-related note; he sought reinstatement.
- Metro conducted return-to-work procedures and later initiated investigations into Petty’s honesty, ultimately terminating him after a second investigation.
- Petty I reversed parts regarding delays and preconditions on reemployment, remanding for reinstatement and damages; remand proceedings resulted in reinstatement order, back pay awards, and a ruling on extra-duty discrimination; Metro appeals and Petty cross-appeals, all USERRA-based.
- The panel affirms the district court on reemployment back pay and reinstatement, discrimination ruling on extra-duty work, motion in limine, and partial liquidated damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reinstatement and back pay under USERRA reemployment | Petty I required full reinstatement and back pay | Metro argues reemployment claims were subsumed by discrimination theory | Affirmed: district court properly reinstated and awarded back pay under reemployment claim |
| Discrimination based on military service via denial of extra-duty work | Second investigation based on military status violated § 4311 | Denial was not tied to status; allowed as discipline-based decision | Affirmed: district court correctly found discrimination and damages for extra-duty denial |
| Grant of motion in limine excluding untruthfulness evidence | Evidence of untruthfulness barred by Petty I and USERRA structure | Evidence relevant to defenses like unclean hands/after-acquired evidence | Affirmed: district court's ruling proper; evidence excluded consistent with Petty I |
| Liquidated damages award for USERRA violation | District court should award full liquidated damages | Petty I guidance limits what is recoverable; reasonable boundaries applied | Affirmed: district court acted within discretion; partial damages upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Petty v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville-Davidson Cnty, 538 F.3d 431 (6th Cir. 2008) (USERRA reemployment and discrimination framework; remand guidance on reinstatement and damages)
- Francis v. Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc., 452 F.3d 299 (4th Cir. 2006) (distinguishes discrimination vs reemployment relief under USERRA)
- Koehler v. PepsiAmericas, Inc., 268 F. App’x 396 (6th Cir. 2008) (willful liquidated damages standard under USERRA)
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111 (1985) (willful conduct standard for staggering damages)
- Fuhr v. School Dist. of Hazel Park, 364 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 2004) (standard for reviewing reinstatement/back-pay awards)