Mueller v. City Of Joliet, 1:17-cv-07938

Background

David Mueller, a Joliet Police sergeant, accepted a full‑time Illinois National Guard Counterdrug Task Force position effective May 9, 2016, and resigned that guard position on August 1, 2016 to return to JPD.
Chief Brian Benton, Deputy Chief Edgar Gregory, and City Manager James Hock discussed Mueller’s leave; Benton emailed Mueller on June 15 offering unpaid leave consistent with law and permitting use of accrued leave, while stating employees on unpaid leave do not continue to accrue vacation/personal days.
During Mueller’s May–July 2016 Guard service, the City paid his regular gross pay each pay period but deducted/used 120 hours of his accrued vacation; personal day accrual was handled separately.
Mueller sued under USERRA (38 U.S.C. § 4311) and the Illinois Military Leave of Absence Act (IMLAA), alleging loss of vacation accrual, being forced to use vacation (compelled use), and denial of differential pay.
The court denied summary judgment on the USERRA claim (finding genuine disputes about whether Mueller was compelled to use vacation and whether military service was a motivating factor) and granted summary judgment for defendants on the IMLAA claim (statutory coverage not shown and deference to IDHR determination).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mueller accrued vacation while on full‑time Guard duty	Mueller says he did not accrue vacation while using leave	City shows payroll records and Malloy declaration showing 13.2 hrs/mo accrual; Malloy admissible	Court: No genuine dispute — Mueller did accrue vacation; not a lost benefit on accrual theory
Whether City had to provide differential (paid) leave	Mueller sought differential pay under USERRA/IMLAA	City says USERRA does not require differential pay; City paid regular pay each period	Court: Differential pay not required under USERRA; claim abandoned for USERRA (IMLAA addressed separately)
Whether Mueller was compelled to use accrued vacation (adverse employment action)	Mueller: pressured/forced to use vacation to cover leave	City: Benton’s June 15 email offered a choice; use was voluntary	Court: Genuine dispute exists — a reasonable factfinder could find he was effectively compelled and that using vacation was an adverse loss
Whether Mueller’s Guard service was a substantial/motivating factor	Mueller points to disparate treatment, colleagues’ remarks, and circumstantial evidence	City disputes comparator relevance and causation; asserts non‑discriminatory staffing reasons	Court: Genuine dispute exists — evidence could support that military service motivated the action
Whether IMLAA applies (differential pay / benefits under state law)	Mueller: IMLAA covers his full‑time Guard duties because orders cited federal authority	City: IMLAA protects only duties "required by the United States Armed Forces"; Mueller’s duties were not so required; IDHR dismissed	Court: IMLAA does not apply here as a matter of law; summary judgment for defendants on Count II

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment and burden of proof on admissible evidence)
Gross v. PPG Indus., Inc., 636 F.3d 884 (definition of "benefit of employment" includes vacations)
Crews v. City of Mt. Vernon, 567 F.3d 860 (USERRA covers discriminatory actions that give military employees fewer benefits)
Hackett v. City of S. Bend, 956 F.3d 504 (burden shifting when service is a motivating factor)
Mueller v. City of Joliet, 943 F.3d 834 (Seventh Circuit: USERRA covers Title 32 full‑time National Guard duty)
Bello v. Vill. of Skokie, 151 F. Supp. 3d 849 (interpretation of IMLAA and role of IDHR findings)
U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Barker Car Rental, 132 F.3d 1153 (rules of statutory construction for Illinois law)
People ex rel. Birkett v. City of Chicago, 779 N.E.2d 875 (deference to agency interpretation of ambiguous Illinois statutes)