Oakley Baldwin v. City of Greensboro
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9201
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Baldwin, a Chief Warrant Officer in the U.S. Coast Guard Reserves, sued the City of Greensboro alleging USERRA violations for failure to retain and reemploy.
- Baldwin signed a release in January 2003 when he was to be released from active duty, which purportedly waived claims against the City.
- DOL investigated Baldwin’s USERRA claim; the investigation ran until March 1, 2007, then reopened later to examine post-2003 rights.
- Baldwin filed his initial federal complaint on September 29, 2009, asserting USERRA claims under §§ 4311–4312.
- The district court held Baldwin’s USERRA claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a) and granted summary judgment.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding § 1658(a) applies and VBIA’s no-time-limit provision does not retroactively revive pre-enactment claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1658(a) applies to Baldwin’s USERRA claims | Baldwin argues VBIA bars limits; USERRA should not be subject to §1658(a) | City argues §1658(a) applies and VBIA does not retroactively revive claims | §1658(a) applies to Baldwin’s USERRA claims |
| Whether VBIA retroactively affects accrual or tolling | VBIA bars all time limits; should apply retroactively | VBIA retroactivity not clearly intended; not retroactive in this case | VBIA §4327(b) not retroactively applied to Baldwin’s pre-enactment claims |
| Whether the VBIA amendment constitutes a clarifying or substantive change | §4327(b) clarifies and should apply to pending cases | §4327(b) is substantive and should not revive time-barred actions | §4327(b) not applied retroactively to revive Baldwin’s claims |
| Whether tolling of the statute of limitations occurred due to active duty or DOL investigation | Active duty and DOL tolling extended the period | Tolling did not save the claim; accrual was January 23, 2003 | Tolling did not render the claims timely; action barred by §1658(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- Middleton v. City of Chicago, 578 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2009) (affirms that USERRA claims arise under post-1990 enactment for §1658(a))
- Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (U.S. 2004) (test for whether a claim 'arises under' a post-1990 enactment)
- Bd. of Regents of Univ. of State of N.Y. v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478 (1980) (concerns about uniform limitations and voids without a statute)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (presumption against retroactivity; three-step analysis)
- Brown v. Thompson, 374 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. 2004) (clarifying vs substantive amendments; retroactivity concerns)
- Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U.S. 939 (1997) (retrospectively applying amendments; legislative intent)