Petty V. Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County

Assignment #3 - Petty v. Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County

Arneida McDonald

August 11, 2012

Business Employment Law - HRM 510

Dr. Zelphia A. Brown, SPHR, Instructor

Assignment #3 - Petty v. Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County

1. What were the legal issues in this case? In the case of Petty v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County, the legal issue refers to whether Petty was truthful about the when he provided the required information about his discharge from the service and the reasons that led to such discharge. Additionally, there was the issue in the same case in regards to the delay for Petty to be re-employed after returning from the Army reserve. The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ( USERRA) protects civilian job rights and benefits for veterans and members of the Reserve components (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2012); which can certainly show that the Metropolitan Police violated the USERRA rights act although the delay was based on the employee’s alleged dishonesty even though they have the obligation facilitate his return to work.

The treatment given to Petty, a former Police Officer who was force to leave the Metro Police Department for his active duty mobilization in the United States Army Reserve had few issues that led to the case going to a court case. Upon his return, from active duty, his reemployment request was delay exceeding the required time for this process to be executed. Additionally, he was not rehired under the same position as a patrol sergeant or a the equivalent to it based on the information given when he completed the return-to-work form failing to disclose all the facts that supports his discharge form the Army. The Metropolitan Police Department has specific process established under their return-to-work form; their policy clearly states that is required for all returnee’s officers to complete if they were away for an extended period of time without exceeding five years despite of the reason for their separation.

One of the questions on the personal history questionnaire reads:  “During your absence were you arrested, charged, detained, or a suspect in any criminal action or military disciplinary action for any reason or do you have any action pending? If yes, explain in detail (use back if necessary).” Petty answered “Yes.” He also attached a narrative explanation of his response in which he admitted facing military charges in Kuwait. The narrative description did not disclose:  (1) that Petty was accused of giving alcohol to an enlisted soldier; and (2) that Petty was accused of manufacturing alcohol. Since Petty did not