The United States brought a civil action on behalf of Stacy Gonzales, a member of the United States Army National Guard, against the State of Kansas. The action alleged that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 by discriminating against Gonzales based on her military service obligations.
During the relevant period, Gonzales worked as a local disease intervention specialist for the Finney County Health Department. Her position was funded in large part through federal Aid-to-Local grants administered by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Gonzales performed public health duties related to disease prevention and regularly interacted with both Finney County personnel and supervisors affiliated with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.
Gonzales’s salary and benefits were issued through Finney County. Her work, however, was subject to training requirements, performance standards, and oversight established by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Gonzales also attended mandatory meetings led by state officials and was evaluated using criteria developed by the state agency.
In 2010, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment raised concerns regarding Finney County’s performance under the Aid-to-Local grant program. State officials warned that the grant could be discontinued if productivity did not improve. During this period, Gonzales notified state supervisors of her upcoming military deployment.
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment later decided not to renew Finney County’s Aid-to-Local grant. As a result of the loss of funding, Finney County eliminated the local disease intervention specialist position. Gonzales’s employment ended when the position was terminated.
The United States and the State of Kansas filed cross-motions for summary judgment on a limited issue. The dispute focused on whether Kansas, acting through the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, qualified as Gonzales’s employer under USERRA.
The district court concluded that Kansas was not Gonzales’s employer. The court reasoned that Finney County controlled Gonzales’s hiring, firing, salary, and benefits, and that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment did not exercise sufficient authority to be considered an employer under the statute. Based on that conclusion, the court dismissed the action.
The United States appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal addressed the proper interpretation of the term “employer” under USERRA and whether the district court applied the correct summary judgment standard.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the statutory definition of employer, which includes any entity that pays wages or has control over employment opportunities. The court explained that USERRA does not require exclusive or direct control and allows for the possibility that a service member may have more than one employer.
The court emphasized that control over employment opportunities can include authority exercised through funding decisions, training requirements, performance evaluations, and the ability to influence continued employment.
The Court of Appeals examined evidence showing that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment participated in interviewing Gonzales, established training requirements, supervised substantive job duties, and evaluated her performance using state-developed criteria. The record also showed that the state agency had authority to renew or terminate the grant that funded most of Gonzales’s position.
The court determined that the district court failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the United States when granting summary judgment. The appellate court concluded that the evidence permitted a reasonable finding that Kansas, through the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, exercised control over Gonzales’s employment opportunities.
The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Kansas qualified as Gonzales’s employer under USERRA.
If you’re dealing with issues related to military service, reemployment rights, or workplace protections under federal law, Whitcomb Selinsky PC handles matters involving the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. Reach out to our team to schedule a consultation and learn how our team can assist with your situation.