From: FireflyArms (info@fireflyarms.com)
Date: Wed Mar 19 2003 - 09:35:42 PST
Sorry for taking up bandwidth with this but...
If you read the article, you'll see that in both of the cases mentioned the
employees were terminated for "poor job performance" NOT specifically because
of their military service.
As in everything we read/see/hear in the media, I'm sure there are two sides
to this story. I'll prefer to remember the phrase "innocent until proven
guilty" and withold my personal Pep Boys boycott until the case is settled in
court.
Sam B.
http://www.fireflyarms.com
>===== Original Message From Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> =====
>At 10:46 AM -0600 3/19/03, J Travis wrote:
>>I thought there was a law on the books against that? (There should
>>be, anyway.)
>
>There is a law, which makes Pep-Boys decisions all the more stupid.
>
>Section 4311(a) of USERRA provides as follows:
>A person who is a member of, applies to be a member of, performs, has
>performed, applies to perform or has an obligation to perform in a
>uniformed service shall not be denied initial employment,
>re-employment, retention in employment, promotion or any benefit of
>employment by an employer on the basis of that membership,
>application for membership, performance of service, application for
>service or obligation
>--
> Ryan Gill rmgill@SPAMmindspring.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 13:25:53 PDT