Samuel Scudder v. Dolgencorp
900 F.3d 1000
| 8th Cir. | 2018Background
- Samuel Scudder, an Arkansas National Guard sergeant, worked as a Dollar General store manager before deployment to Afghanistan and was approved for military leave through Matrix Absence Management.
- On March 31, 2016 Scudder spoke with Matrix about his inability to return by April 1; Matrix’s examiner understood this as a resignation and notified Dollar General, which processed his separation effective April 5, 2016. Scudder disputes that he resigned.
- On April 24, 2016 Scudder applied online to Dollar General for a store manager job at a different store, disclosing prior employment at Dollar General and that he had been “let go … after returning from Afghanistan injured.” Dollar General did not hire him.
- Scudder applied for Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits; an ALJ later found him disabled as of December 10, 2014 and awarded benefits, which he receives.
- Scudder sued under USERRA asserting Dollar General denied his right to reemployment; the district court granted summary judgment to Dollar General, finding no proper reemployment application and that Scudder waived rights by resigning. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Scudder clearly and unequivocally resigned, waiving USERRA rights | Scudder says he only asked whether he needed to submit two weeks’ notice and did not intend to resign | Dollar General contends Matrix’s report of his statement constituted a clear resignation | Genuine dispute of material fact exists; summary judgment inappropriate on waiver ground |
| Whether Scudder’s April 24 online application constituted an application for reemployment under USERRA | Application identified prior Dollar General employment, listed National Guard, and explained being let go after returning injured — thus put employer on notice | Dollar General says application did not indicate uniformed service and that reemployment should have been sought via Matrix | A reasonable jury could find the application provided adequate notice to the pre-service employer; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether USERRA required application through Matrix (third-party leave coordinator) | Scudder argues USERRA only requires submission to the pre-service employer or its agent; applying via Dollar General’s portal satisfied that duty | Dollar General argues Scudder should have applied through Matrix, which handled his leave | Court: No specific channel required; application to employer portal sufficed as submission to the pre-service employer |
| Whether judicial estoppel bars Scudder’s USERRA claim because he obtained SSD benefits claiming inability to work | Scudder says SSD disability does not preclude USERRA claim because reasonable accommodation could make him qualified for reemployment | Dollar General contends Scudder’s SSD position is inconsistent with seeking reemployment | Judicial estoppel inapplicable: SSD success is not necessarily inconsistent with USERRA claim; employer must make reasonable efforts to accommodate before disqualification |
Key Cases Cited
- Odom v. Kaizer, 864 F.3d 920 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Lisdahl v. Mayo Found., 633 F.3d 712 (8th Cir. 2011) (USERRA reemployment rights definition)
- Shadle v. Superwood Corp., 858 F.2d 437 (8th Cir. 1988) (application-for-reemployment notice standard; case-by-case inquiry)
- Clegg v. Ark. Dep’t of Corr., 496 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2007) (USERRA construed broadly in favor of service members)
- Paisley v. City of Minneapolis, 79 F.3d 722 (8th Cir. 1996) (test for clear and unequivocal resignation)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment and genuine dispute standard)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2001) (judicial estoppel framework)
- Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (U.S. 1999) (SSD receipt does not automatically bar discrimination claims; reasonable accommodation may reconcile positions)
- Petty v. Nashville-Davidson Cnty., 538 F.3d 431 (6th Cir. 2008) (employer bears burden to prove veteran’s disqualification after timely application)