Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

USERRA (The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act)

Read a random definition: literal proof

A quick definition of USERRA (The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act):

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) is a law that protects military members from being treated unfairly by their employers because of their military service. It also requires employers to give their employees their jobs back when they return from military service. This law helps make sure that military members are treated fairly and can keep their jobs when they serve our country.

A more thorough explanation:

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) is a law that protects military members from discrimination by their employers for their military participation. It also requires employers to rehire some employees who become deployed.

USERRA’s main purpose is to prevent employers from discriminating against military employees. This means that employers cannot fire them, keep them from getting promotions, or make their job more difficult than others in similar roles. If an employer takes any discriminatory action against a military employee, it will be considered a violation of the Act if the military service was a “motivating factor” of the action.

For example, if an employer fires an employee because they are in the military, that would be a violation of USERRA.

Employees who experience discrimination may have different remedies, such as an injunction against being fired for a period of time or monetary damages. Most claims are informally resolved through the Secretary of Labor, but employees may bring a claim in court themselves or potentially through arbitration.

Another important provision of USERRA requires employers to rehire most veterans after they return from service. The employee must be rehired at a position and pay equal to what they had before they left. This means some employers must rehire the employees on better terms than they left.

For example, if an employee was making $50,000 a year before they left for military service and the company gave raises while they were gone, the employee must be rehired at the new salary.

To qualify for this treatment, a veteran must have given the employer proper notice of future uniformed service and must start employment again soon after finishing service. This does not apply for employees who are in uniformed services for less than 32 days. Those who are in service for 32-180 cannot be fired by the employer after returning for at least 180 days with certain exceptions and a year for those that are in service for more than 180 days.

For example, if an employee is in the military for 6 months, they cannot be fired by their employer for at least a year after they return.

There are exceptions that may disqualify an employee. An employee cannot be in service more than five years with the same employer and still be guaranteed employment after service. Further, an employer may not have to rehire an employee when they can prove that rehiring is no longer possible because of changes in the business or major financial difficulties prevent them doing so.

For example, if a company goes out of business while an employee is in the military, the employer cannot rehire them because the job no longer exists.

The standard for this exception is unclear but essentially requires the reemployment to be highly impractical for the employer.

usefulness | USPTO

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
@VolatileClumsyAcolyte: biggest tip that will get you a few points is that the LSAT doesn’t actually use “most correct” like it claims. there’s actually only ever one right answer and every other answer will be excluded by one rule of logic or another. so only one answer will ever be completely correct
is there like a cheat sheet or a study guide type of thing for specific forms of questions? I remember I struggled the most with NA/SA/PSA
@soap: if you get above a 175 you should just reapply because you’d probably be competitive for penn nyu and cls at that point with scholly money
I scored 156 on my first LSAT in August, I cancelled that and retook it immediately in September and got 163. Do yall think I can cross into 170's if I start studying from like january to summer
because i've heard that any score increase after 165 is just as hard as from 145 to 160
soap
14:01
I've been told by my parents that I cannot reapply because I have the full ride to UMN and so I better take whatever I can get lol
texaslawhopefully
14:01
I’m going to have to disagree with soap on the point of doing the hardest questions first. I think it’s just a general waste of time to over complicate your strategy. You’re going to have do all the questions anyone. Ignore the clock and focus on one question at a time.
@VolatileClumsyAcolyte: it gets harder to increase your score as you go up, but if you work hard and consistently work on your mistakes it’s entirely possible you break 170
got it thank u guys
@soap: lol oh well just get top 10% a umn and then transfer to harvard because you come from a grade deflated undergrad and law school will be easy for you
soap
14:02
I think the order in which you do questions is a matter of personal preference. In PTs I've always scored better doing the hardest ones first, but that's just because it reduces the stress personally lol
soap
14:02
I guess since I'm paying for all this anyhow I could just wait and reapply lmao
texaslawhopefully
14:03
Yeah soap if you get a 175+, I would 100 percent reapply
hahahahah sure if you’re set on t14 it’s entirely attainable for you
texaslawhopefully
14:03
If your parents aren’t helping at all, they don’t have much of a say
14:08
^valid pt
my mom is so involved in my application proccess she wanted to cater my personal statement to what she believed would make most impact on adcom.
she is helping pay for it but even if so, they shouldnt be too involved
shes a war veteran so she wanted me to spend significant portion of my ps talking about how much her journey affected and inspired me so i ignored her to the fullest by simply saying "ps is about me not you"
speaking of test prep, any 7sage alternatives that include explanations without "youre dumb if u dont get this"
14:25
twitter is making me so mad i may have to get rid of it
texaslawhopefully
14:25
I’m going to get dogged on for saying this, but LSAT Demon has fairly good explanations
14:25
i had demon for a month and they have flushed out written explanations that helpo
14:26
7sage explanations are so sucky i gotta watch a vid of a dude eliminiating an answer choice with 2 seconds of explainaing why
dude, i feel like 7sage guy speedruns thru the whole test.
14:30
the vids are 80% him reading the stimulus out loud then he devotes 4 seconds to each answer choice i swear
14:31
i shake my fist to the sky]
LOL thats so true...they were good for LG but now i dont see the point... applied to GULC mid oct, havent received II or anything, so i HAVE to be cooked, right?
windyMagician
14:35
my parents didn’t know i was applying to law school until i got in. it’s great being old
windyMagician
14:35
my dad barely knows the difference between mich and umn
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.