Reservist Claims Employment Discrimination Due to Military Service

the honorable robert w. pratt, chief judge, united states district court for error by drawing all favorable inferences in favor of [rehabcare]." see reynolds v. and (2) failed to rehire her upon her return from active military duty, in violation of adverse grant of summary -2- standard of review and assigned the burdens of proof accurately. the district court and 4313. was receiving while . . . employed by progressive," in violation of 38 u.s.c. �� 4312 reynolds at progressive's office in iowa city, iowa, but reynolds declined the offer. hills). progressive had a contract with green hills to provide physical therapy sent reynolds an application for employment. reynolds crossed out the word novo a district court's grant of summary judgment. see myers v. lutsen mtns. corp., representative informed reynolds that, while rehabcare would like to employ green hills of its intent to terminate their contract. in july 2007, green hills entered employment offer, but reynolds declined to hear any offers. she later stated, "if they before riley, smith, and gruender, circuit judges. we specifically address two additional points raised by reynolds on appeal [t]he fighting issue in this case is whether [reynolds] has a right to party, demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving rehabcare was not a successor-in-interest to progressive. see reynolds, 590 reemploy reynolds "in the position of like seniority, status and pay [that reynolds] district court made no such finding. the district court determined, correctly, that ___________ discriminated against reynolds based on her military status, in violation of 38 u.s.c. requesting reemployment at green hills pursuant to userra, and claiming judgment on reynolds's claims against rehabcare group east, inc. (rehabcare). ___________ regarding the district court's analysis of her claims. reynolds first suggests the court's order satisfies us that the district court applied the correct summary judgment interest" to progressive, such that it was obligated to "reemploy" id. therefore, the district court found rehabcare was not liable under userra for prior to leaving, i didn't want to hear the offer." judgment for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough analysis. see 8th cir. reynolds brought an action against rehabcare asserting: (1) rehabcare reynolds at the green hills facility, rehabcare did not believe userra was were not going to honor the userra law and reinstate me into my job that i had 587 f.3d 891, 892 (8th cir. 2009) (citation omitted). "summary judgment is judgment. reynolds became an employee of progressive rehabilitation associates appellant, * party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." id. at 893 (citations omitted). * * southern district of iowa. id. at 1112 (internal marks and quotation omitted). after analyzing the applicable the district court's disposition of these claims. we therefore affirm the district court's we affirm the judgment of the district court. reynolds, who was aware progressive was ending its contract with green hills, sent filed: january 14, 2010 a preliminary injunction). this argument lacks merit. our review of the district iii. conclusion appellee. * rehabcare group e., inc., 531 f. supp. 2d 1050 (s.d. iowa 2008) (declining to issue the material facts in reynolds's case are not in dispute. reviewing the issues continuity of business operations, a continuity of employees, or a similarity in ______________________________ raised in reynolds's appeal de novo, we conclude the district court properly granted for the eighth circuit "held as a matter of law that service contracts are not covered by [userra]." the � 4311, and (2) rehabcare was a successor-in-interest to progressive and refused to -5- failing to reemploy reynolds in her former position. see id. "employment" and wrote in "re-employment/userra." a rehabcare supervisors and managers." id. at 1121 (citing 20 c.f.r. � 1002.35). reynolds reynoldschallengesthedistrictcourt'sadversegrantofsummaryjudgmentand services to green hills's residents in ames, iowa. in november 2005, the army terms. see id. at 1125. the district court granted summary judgment to rehabcare ___________ rehabcare made significant efforts to employ reynolds on mutually satisfactory rehabcare was a successor-in-interest to progressive under userra. rehabcare progressive at the time of her deployment to active military service. successor-in-interest to progressive because reynolds could not "demonstrate a coffman v. chugach support servs., inc., 411 f.3d 1231, 1237-38 (11th cir. 2005). factors, the district court found no reasonable jury could conclude rehabcare was a riley, circuit judge. summary judgment to rehabcare on both of reynolds's claims. we find no error in more specifically, the question is whether rehabcare is a "successor in the district court granted summary judgment to rehabcare on both counts of submitted: november 17, 2009 pamela f. reynolds, * a letter to progressive and rod copple, the executive director of green hills, evidence rehabcare displayed any discriminatory animus toward reynolds; rather, previously had been employed by progressive, not green hills or rehabcare, and was the southern district of iowa. we similarly reject reynolds's contention that the district court incorrectly pamela reynolds (reynolds), a physical therapist and a captain in the united * appeal from the united states unrelated companies with no contractual or business relationship between them. see into a contract with deerfield retirement community, which in turn entered into a the court in a previous ruling denying [reynolds's] motion for a temporary injunction no. 09-1144 did not improperly use facts or law from a previous ruling. notified reynolds she was being called to active duty. reynolds sought, and was given the different burdens of proof of the opposing motions and compounded the -3- (progressive) in may 2004, working at green hills retirement community (green ii. discussion upon reynolds's return from active duty, progressive offered to reemploy the uniform services employment and reemployment rights act of 1994 1126 (s.d. iowa 2008). in a well-reasoned order, the district court noted, rehabcare did not employ any progressive employees from green hills. appropriate when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving the complaint. see reynolds v. rehabcare group e., inc., 590 f. supp. 2d 1107, granted, a military leave of absence from progressive. reynolds was stationed at fort f. supp. 2d at 1122. subcontract with rehabcare to provide rehabilitation services at green hills. [reynolds] under userra. maintains she presented sufficient evidence and genuine issues of material fact to 1 states army reserve, appeals from the district court's1 rehabcare group east, inc., * reynoldsclaimsrehabcare(1)discriminated againstherbasedonhermilitarystatus; district court "improperly used factual determinations and legal conclusions made by stationed at green hills. see id. at 1122. progressive and rehabcare are two distinct, (userra), 38 u.s.c. �� 4301-4335, as amended. we affirm the district court's v. * district court for the on both of reynolds's claims. see id. at 1126. -4- r. 47b; see also leib v. ga.-pac. corp., 925 f.2d 240, 246-47 (8th cir. 1991); united states court of appeals with respect to reynolds's discrimination claim, the district court found no proceed to trial with her failure to reemploy and discrimination claims. we review de reemployment by rehabcare, given that she was employed by ___________ hood, texas, frommarch 2006 through july 2007. in may 2007, progressive notified applicable to rehabcare for reynolds. rehabcare was prepared to make an * i. background ___________