High court sides with fired Army reservist

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with a former hospital lab technician who says his service in the U.S. Army Reserve led to his dismissal.

The decision, based on a federal law intended to prevent job discrimination against members of the military, is the first in which the court has ruled that an employer can be held liable for the discriminatory acts of supervisors who do not make final employment decisions.

The justices voted 8-0 to throw out a federal appeals court ruling in favor of Proctor Hospital in Peoria, Ill. Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion for the court ordered the appeals court to reconsider the case of Vincent Staub, an angiography technician.

A jury awarded Staub $57,640 in damages after it found he was fired because of his military service. Staub was fired in 2004 after 15 years at the hospital. He has been in the Reserves since 1984 and was called to active duty in 2003 to train U.S. soldiers in the Iraq war to set up a radiology unit in a field hospital.



Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/01/2091473/high-court-sides-with-fired-army.html

[Rage for Order]

1. He was fired because his supervisor was anti-military

Sounds like his direct supervisor hated the military and, by extension, people who serve in the military. Or, at the very least, hated Mr. Staub because of his service in the military. The direct supervisor then influenced a more senior executive in the company to fire Mr. Staub. The company tried to argue (and the lower court decided) that since the direct supervisor wasn't the person who made the ultimate employment decision (i.e. firing him) the company as a whole was not liable. The Supreme Court disagreed and held the company responsible (rightfully so, imo).

[elleng]

3. Right, but astonishing that lower court didn't find for him.

[happyslug]

5. Read the opinion, NOT anti-military,

The supervisors of the Reservist hated to work around the reservist's weekend drills. That was the problem not anything anti-military. The supervisors hated to have to work the weekend the reservists had drills. The supervisions hated to have to have to schedule other people for that day. That was the prejudice and that is illegal.

[elleng]

2. Good one, and perfectly logical.

[happyslug]

4. Here is the Actual Opinion,

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-400.pdf

In the opinion, the Justices reviewed the evidence and there were no anti-military prejudice, but equally illegal prejudice against the Reservist for being a Reservist AND how that was affecting the company and other workers.

Scalia basically said, that if your supervisor writes you up because you are in the reserves, and later another higher supervisions fires you, you can sue both of them (and their employer). A company can not protect discrimination against reserve duty by permitting a lower supervisor (Who does NOT have the power to hire or fire) to so prejudice a higher supervisor (Who has the power to hire and fire) that the later fires a reservist. The Seventh Circuit had said otherwise, i.e. the reservist had to prove prejudice by the person who fired him, NOT lower ranking people who so made up the employment jacket so that the Supervisor with termination rights would terminate the reservist.