White v. United Airlines: Seventh Circuit Finds Paid Military Leave Covered by USERRA

Background

Eric White worked as a commercial airline pilot for United Airlines and served in the United States Air Force Reserve. As part of his reserve duties, White took short-term military leave several times a year, usually lasting one or two days. During these absences, United did not pay him, even though pilots received pay for other short-term leaves, such as jury duty or sick leave. United also excluded periods of military leave from profit-sharing calculations, which were based on total earnings.

In 2019, White filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against United Airlines, Inc. and United Continental Holdings, Inc. He alleged that the company violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) by denying paid leave and profit-sharing benefits to pilots on short-term military leave. White contended that military leave should be treated the same as comparable nonmilitary leaves under 38 U.S.C. § 4316(b)(1).

District Court Proceedings

The district court dismissed the complaint, ruling that USERRA did not require employers to pay wages during military leave. It concluded that the statute’s reference to “rights and benefits” did not include paid leave and found that military leave was not comparable to jury duty or sick leave. The court also expressed concern that interpreting the law as White proposed would impose a universal obligation on employers to provide paid military leave, which it believed Congress had not intended.

Appellate Review

White appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The central issue on appeal was whether USERRA’s equal-benefits provision required employers to provide paid military leave if they offered pay for other comparable absences. The appellate court examined the statute’s language and legislative history, focusing on whether paid leave fell within the meaning of “rights and benefits.”

Legal Analysis

The Seventh Circuit interpreted “rights and benefits” broadly, citing 38 U.S.C. § 4303(2), which defines the term to include “any advantage, profit, privilege, or gain” provided under an employment policy or plan. The court noted that Congress intentionally used expansive language and that paid leave qualified as an employment benefit. It rejected United’s argument that the phrase “including wages or salary for work performed” excluded compensation for leave, reasoning that the definition was illustrative rather than restrictive.

The court also reviewed the statute’s history, noting that Congress had amended USERRA in 2010 to expand the definition of “rights and benefits” after an earlier interpretation had excluded wages. The amendment replaced “other than wages or salary for work performed” with “including wages or salary for work performed,” signaling Congress’s intent to broaden employee protections. The appellate court concluded that paid leave could qualify as a protected benefit under USERRA if the leave was comparable to other forms of paid absence.

Comparability and Remand

The Seventh Circuit emphasized that whether military leave was comparable to jury duty or sick leave was a factual question requiring consideration of three factors: duration, purpose, and employee control over timing. The court stated that the duration of the leave was often the most significant factor, but purpose and control also played important roles. It found that the district court erred by ruling as a matter of law that military leave was not comparable to other short-term absences. The appellate court noted that military duties, though voluntary in enlistment, were not voluntary in timing and that the comparability analysis should not penalize service members for choosing to serve.

Additional Issues

United argued that its parent company, United Continental Holdings, should be dismissed because it was not White’s employer under USERRA. The Seventh Circuit disagreed, finding that White plausibly alleged sufficient control by the parent company. The complaint alleged that United Continental Holdings participated in collective bargaining negotiations and influenced United’s employment policies, which, if proven, could qualify it as an employer under 38 U.S.C. § 4303(4)(A).

Court’s Ruling

On February 3, 2021, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that paid leave falls within the scope of employment benefits protected by USERRA and that whether military leave was comparable to other paid absences required factual development. The case was sent back for discovery and trial to determine if United’s practices violated the statute.

Assistance with USERRA Matters

If you have faced issues related to military leave, reemployment, or benefit discrimination, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC assists with USERRA cases. Contact our team to learn how we can help you assert your rights and ensure compliance with federal service member protections.