Hill v. Amentum: Nevada Court Rules Union Workers Not Owed Extra USERRA Pay

Jonathon Hill and Phillip Rowton worked for Amentum Services, Inc. as unexploded ordnance technicians, providing support services to the federal government under a Range Support Services contract in Nevada. Both were members of Teamsters Local 631 and covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). In 2021, Hill and Rowton were called to active duty military service and took leave from Amentum. Upon their return, they claimed they were entitled to 90 days of paid military leave under Amentum’s Military Leave Policy, which applied to non-union employees.

Amentum denied their requests, explaining that the CBA governed their employment terms and did not include the same 90-day differential pay benefit provided to non-union employees. The Teamsters Union filed grievances on behalf of both employees, asserting that the Military Leave Policy applied to union members as well. An arbitrator ultimately rejected the grievance, finding that the policy did not extend to employees covered by the CBA.

District Court Proceedings

Hill and Rowton filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). They argued that Amentum’s refusal to pay 90 days of active-duty military leave discriminated against them on the basis of military service, in violation of 38 U.S.C. § 4316(b)(1). They sought partial summary judgment on liability, while Amentum filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.

Hill and Rowton contended that USERRA required Amentum to provide them with the same paid leave benefits that it provided to similarly situated non-union employees. Amentum countered that union employees were not “similarly situated” because their pay and benefits were determined through collective bargaining, making their employment terms distinct from non-union workers.

Legal Analysis

The court analyzed whether Hill and Rowton were entitled to paid leave benefits under USERRA, which prohibits discrimination against service members and requires employers to provide them with the same non-seniority benefits offered to employees of similar seniority, status, and pay. The court noted that compensation during military leave is a non-seniority right or benefit under 38 U.S.C. § 4316(b)(1)(B). However, the statute’s protection extends only to employees who are similarly situated with respect to seniority, status, and pay.

Relying on precedent from the Ninth Circuit and other federal courts, the court held that union and non-union employees are not similarly situated for purposes of comparing benefits. The court referenced Belaustegui v. International Longshore & Warehouse Union (9th Cir. 2022), which found that benefits established through collective bargaining differ inherently from those provided to non-represented employees. The court also cited analogous decisions under Title VII and other discrimination statutes, emphasizing that employees in different bargaining units cannot serve as comparators for benefit claims.

Hill and Rowton argued that Amentum’s CBA provisions unlawfully reduced rights protected under USERRA, pointing to 38 U.S.C. § 4302(b), which preempts contracts that limit statutory rights. The court disagreed, finding that USERRA does not require employers to provide paid military leave at all, and that the CBA’s omission of the 90-day pay benefit did not reduce any right guaranteed by the statute.

The court concluded that the Military Leave Policy applied only to non-union employees and that union members’ benefits were determined solely by their negotiated agreement. Because USERRA’s equal-benefit provisions did not extend across bargaining units, Hill and Rowton were not entitled to the additional paid leave.

Court’s Ruling

On September 4, 2025, the District Court denied Hill and Rowton’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted Amentum’s cross-motion. The court held that they were not similarly situated to non-union employees and that Amentum’s denial of the 90-day paid military leave did not violate USERRA. The court entered judgment for Amentum and closed the case.

Assistance with USERRA Matters

If you have experienced issues related to military leave, reemployment rights, or discrimination based on service obligations, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC assists with USERRA cases. Contact our team to learn how we can support your claim.