David Mueller v. City of Joliet
943 F.3d 834
7th Cir.2019Background
- David Mueller, a Joliet police sergeant, enlisted in the Illinois National Guard and was ordered to "Full Time National Guard Duty" on the Illinois Counterdrug Task Force under authority invoked via 32 U.S.C. § 112.
- Mueller reported for active duty (May–Sept 2016); the Joliet Police Department placed him on unpaid leave, required use of accrued benefits, and he did not receive city compensation while on duty.
- Mueller resigned from the Guard, returned to the police department, and sued the City and supervisors under USERRA (and state-law military leave) alleging discriminatory denial of employment benefits because of his Guard service.
- The district court dismissed, finding Mueller’s counterdrug duty was authorized by State law (not covered by USERRA), relying on a DOL regulation and expressing concerns about 32 U.S.C. § 112 and the Posse Comitatus Act.
- The Seventh Circuit reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and reversed, holding that USERRA’s plain language and controlling regulation cover Title 32 full‑time National Guard duty (including § 112 counterdrug assignments), and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USERRA covers Title 32 "full‑time National Guard duty" | USERRA defines "service in the uniformed services" to include full‑time National Guard duty, so Mueller’s Title 32 service is protected | Service here was under State authority (State Adjutant General) and thus outside USERRA per DOL reg and district court | Reversed: USERRA’s plain language and DOL regulation protect Title 32 full‑time NG duty, so Mueller’s service is covered |
| Whether 32 U.S.C. § 112 or the Posse Comitatus Act preclude treating §112 counterdrug duty as federal/USERRA‑protected | §112 creates a federally funded Title 32 mechanism distinct from Title 10; that does not remove USERRA protection | §112’s references to personnel "in Federal service" and Posse Comitatus concerns imply §112 duties aren’t federally authorized for USERRA purposes | Rejected: court declined to conflate "federal service" with "federal authority;" Posse Comitatus applies to Title 10 forces, not Title 32 NG duty, so no bar to USERRA coverage |
| Proper reading/weight of Department of Labor regulation (20 C.F.R. §1002.57) | The regulation distinguishes State Active Duty (not protected) from Title 32 full‑time NG duty (protected); thus it supports coverage | District court relied on subsection saying NG service under State law is not protected and treated Mueller’s duty as state service | Court interpreted regulation consistently with USERRA: Title 32 full‑time NG duty is covered; State Active Duty is not |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. City of Chicago, 817 F.3d 561 (7th Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and accepting well‑pleaded facts)
- Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Worth Bullion Grp., Inc., 717 F.3d 545 (7th Cir. 2013) (statutory interpretation principles; start with plain language)
- Turley v. Gaetz, 625 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 2010) (use ordinary meaning to discern legislative purpose in statutory construction)
- Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985) (courts should look to statutory text to ascertain legislative intent)