U.S. Capitol Police – Office of Employment Counsel: Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Comments from Interested Parties Implementing Certain Substantive Employment Rights and Protections for Veterans as Required Under 2 U.S.C. 1316 (USERRA)
Posted June 9th, 2008
Dear Ms. Chrisler:
The Office of Compliance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPR”) regarding the above was published in the Congressional Record on April 21,2008 (S3188-S3203) and on May 8, 2008 (H3338-K3400). In accordance with section 304(b)(2) of the Congressional Accountability Act (“CAA”) and the NPR, comments are to be submitted to the Office of Compliance by June 9, 2008.
The United States Capitol Police Office of Employment Counsel and the Office of the General Counsel offer the following comments and observations with respect to the NPR.
I. The Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Retaliation Regulation from Employer Discrimination and Retaliation Have Been Changed Without Good Cause.
As an initial matter it is unclear why the Office of Compliance is citing to its Britton v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, 02-AC-20 (CV, RP) in support of a different retaliation standard. First, the USCP was not a party to that decision and notes that the district court for the District of Columbia has taken a different position than what is asserted by the Office of Compliance. Thus, there is still an open question about whether the Britton rationale will withstand court scrutiny.
Nevertheless, the Britton decision has no applicability to 38 U.S.C. §§4311(a) and 4311(b) made applicable by section 206(a) of the CAA. Substantive regulations for USERRA should not be changed to take place of substantive regulations for section 207 provisions of reprisal. Moreover, the Britton decision should not be bootstrapped to substantive regulations to suggest Congressional support for the Office of Compliance Britton decision. Reliance on the Britton decision is not good cause to modify the Department of Labor (“DOL”) Regulations.
With regard to regulation § 1002.19, it is suggested that the language be changed to more accurately reflect the DOL Regulation. The last clause of the sentence should change “is performing” to “has performed” to be consistent with the regulations and service in the uniformed services should refer to §1002.5(t) of the regulations.
Learn more and continue to read by downloading the following document(s).
Rules & Regulations
Home Rules & Regulations Substantive Regulations Pending Regulations
U.S. Capitol Police – Office of Employment Counsel: Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Comments from Interested Parties Implementing Certain Substantive Employment Rights and Protections for Veterans as Required Under 2 U.S.C. 1316 (USERRA)
Posted June 9th, 2008
Dear Ms. Chrisler:
The Office of Compliance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPR”) regarding the above was published in the Congressional Record on April 21,2008 (S3188-S3203) and on May 8, 2008 (H3338-K3400). In accordance with section 304(b)(2) of the Congressional Accountability Act (“CAA”) and the NPR, comments are to be submitted to the Office of Compliance by June 9, 2008.
The United States Capitol Police Office of Employment Counsel and the Office of the General Counsel offer the following comments and observations with respect to the NPR.
I. The Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Retaliation Regulation from Employer Discrimination and Retaliation Have Been Changed Without Good Cause.
As an initial matter it is unclear why the Office of Compliance is citing to its Britton v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, 02-AC-20 (CV, RP) in support of a different retaliation standard. First, the USCP was not a party to that decision and notes that the district court for the District of Columbia has taken a different position than what is asserted by the Office of Compliance. Thus, there is still an open question about whether the Britton rationale will withstand court scrutiny.
Nevertheless, the Britton decision has no applicability to 38 U.S.C. §§4311(a) and 4311(b) made applicable by section 206(a) of the CAA. Substantive regulations for USERRA should not be changed to take place of substantive regulations for section 207 provisions of reprisal. Moreover, the Britton decision should not be bootstrapped to substantive regulations to suggest Congressional support for the Office of Compliance Britton decision. Reliance on the Britton decision is not good cause to modify the Department of Labor (“DOL”) Regulations.
With regard to regulation § 1002.19, it is suggested that the language be changed to more accurately reflect the DOL Regulation. The last clause of the sentence should change “is performing” to “has performed” to be consistent with the regulations and service in the uniformed services should refer to §1002.5(t) of the regulations.
Learn more and continue to read by downloading the following document(s).
U.S. Capitol Police - Office of Employment Counsel: Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Comments from Interested Parties Implementing Certain Substantive Employment Rights and Protections for Veterans as Required Under 2 U.S.C. 1316 (USERRA)
Download ›
CATEGORIES: Comments Pending Regulations Substantive Regulations Involving the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
TAGS: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)