8 F.4th 198
3d Cir.2021Background
- Plaintiff Gerard (Jonathan in caption?) Travers is a U.S. Navy reservist who took short-term military leave while employed by FedEx; FedEx does not pay employees for military leave but does pay for certain non-military leaves (jury duty, sick, bereavement).
- Travers sued under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), alleging disparate treatment because FedEx pays some non-military leave but not military leave.
- The district court dismissed Travers’s complaint, concluding that paid leave is not a USERRA "right and benefit." Travers appealed.
- The Third Circuit reviewed dismissal de novo under the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard and analyzed USERRA text, structure, history, and interpretive canons to identify the statute’s ordinary meaning.
- The court held that § 4316(b)(1) requires employers to afford servicemembers the "other rights and benefits" that the employer generally provides to similarly situated employees on other types of leave, and that pay during leave falls within USERRA’s definition of "rights and benefits" in § 4303(2).
- The case was vacated and remanded for the district court to determine whether the non-military leaves FedEx pays are sufficiently comparable to Travers’s military leave.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pay while absent ("paid leave") is a USERRA "right and benefit." | Travers: yes — "paid leave" means continuing to receive pay while absent and is covered by § 4303(2). | FedEx: no — USERRA covers specific employer-provided benefits; company pays only for specific leaves (e.g., paid sick leave), not a generic "paid military leave." | Held: Pay during leave is covered by § 4303(2); USERRA protects benefits an employer "generally provides" to similarly situated non-military leave takers. |
| Whether the benefit must be labeled "paid military leave" (i.e., require an identical label to exist for non-military employees). | Travers: labels not required; compare groups of employees on leave and whether non-military group receives pay that military group does not. | FedEx: because no one receives "paid military leave," there is nothing denied to military employees. | Held: Court rejects requirement of a specific "military" label; inquiry is whether employer generally provides a benefit to comparable non-military leave-takers. Remand to assess comparability. |
| Whether the parenthetical "(including wages or salary for work performed)" excludes pay when work is not performed (i.e., paid leave). | Travers: parenthetical is illustrative, not restrictive; Congress expanded language to include wages. | FedEx/District Ct.: the parenthetical shows Congress meant only wages for work actually performed. | Held: Parenthetical is illustrative; Congress replaced earlier exclusionary text with "including," so wages during leave are encompassed. |
| Whether recognizing pay-for-leave claims under USERRA conflicts with 5 U.S.C. § 6323(a) (specific federal employee leave statute). | Travers: no conflict; § 6323 is a statutory floor for federal employees and does not negate USERRA coverage. | FedEx/District Ct.: finding USERRA requires pay would render the federal statute redundant. | Held: No conflict; § 6323 provides additional, particular benefits for federal employees and is not nullified by a broader USERRA reading. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wis. Cent. Ltd. v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2067 (2018) (use ordinary meaning at enactment as starting point for statutory interpretation)
- Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (1979) (ordinary meaning of statutory words governs interpretation)
- Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1002 (2017) (begin and end inquiry with the text; contextual reading)
- Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019) (use interpretive toolkit: standard tools of statutory interpretation)
- Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs. v. Newton, 139 S. Ct. 1881 (2019) (read statutory words in context of overall scheme)
- Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 U.S. 275 (1946) (historical principle that servicemembers should not be penalized in civilian employment for military service)
- Monroe v. Standard Oil Co., 452 U.S. 549 (1981) (earlier veterans’ employment-protection precedent discussed in USERRA’s history)
- White v. United Airlines, Inc., 987 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2021) (contrasting circuit decision addressing short-term paid military leave)
- Gordon v. Wawa, 388 F.3d 78 (3d Cir. 2004) (standard of review for dismissal; consider complaint's allegations as true)
- NLRB v. SW Gen., Inc., 137 S. Ct. 929 (2017) (caution on applying the negative-implication canon; exclusionary inferences require support)