Andrew J. Kelly served eight years in the United States Navy and was honorably discharged in 2006. Following his service, he became eligible for educational assistance under the Montgomery G.I. Bill. Kelly later worked for Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) as a chemistry technician. OPPD offered its employees an Employee Education Program (EEP), which reimbursed tuition expenses for approved coursework up to $5,000 annually. However, the EEP policy stated that assistance would not be available to employees already receiving tuition aid from other sources, including Veterans Affairs (VA) education benefits, if those benefits fully covered tuition.
In 2010, Kelly enrolled in a bachelor’s program at Bellevue University. He initially received EEP benefits for his spring 2011 semester while awaiting processing of his G.I. Bill benefits. Once the G.I. Bill was approved, it retroactively covered his tuition, and OPPD later denied his request for additional EEP funds, citing the duplication of benefits. OPPD also sought reimbursement for tuition it had already paid directly to Bellevue, which was then covered by Kelly’s G.I. Bill benefits. Kelly believed OPPD’s actions violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
In 2011, Kelly contacted OPPD management, asserting that denying him EEP benefits because of his receipt of G.I. Bill funds constituted unlawful discrimination under USERRA. After this challenge, he did not reapply for benefits, stating that he feared retaliation at work. He later filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, alleging USERRA violations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of OPPD, finding that denying tuition reimbursement due to duplicative funding sources did not amount to discrimination based on military service.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit considered whether OPPD’s denial of EEP benefits violated USERRA’s prohibition against denying employment benefits on the basis of military service. The court recognized that education assistance under OPPD’s program was a “benefit of employment” and that USERRA must be construed broadly in favor of service members. However, the key issue was whether Kelly’s military status was a motivating factor in the denial of benefits.
The appellate court noted that OPPD’s policy denied benefits to any employee receiving duplicative aid, not just veterans. Evidence showed that another employee who received partial G.I. Bill benefits was still eligible for EEP assistance covering the remaining tuition. This demonstrated that OPPD’s policy did not automatically exclude all veterans. The court reasoned that Kelly was denied benefits not because of his military status, but because his G.I. Bill fully covered his tuition, leaving no expenses for OPPD to reimburse.
Kelly also pointed to hostile communications from an OPPD manager as evidence of animus. The court found that these communications reflected frustration but not discrimination based on military status. It also rejected Kelly’s argument that OPPD treated military benefits differently than other potential sources of tuition aid, such as family contributions.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of OPPD. It held that Kelly failed to present sufficient evidence that his military status was a motivating factor in the denial of EEP benefits. The decision confirmed that offsetting tuition assistance by the amount of G.I. Bill benefits did not violate USERRA.
If you have faced challenges regarding reemployment rights or discrimination based on military service, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC handles cases involving USERRA. Contact us to learn how our team can assist with your claim.