Petty vs Metro

Petty v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County

Annabelle A Belasco

HRM 510

Dr. Judie Bucholz

2/10/2014

Background

In Petty v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, the case involved a police officer who was in the Army Reserve. Mr. Petty left the police department for active duty with the United States Army in 2003 after notifying his superiors and sought reemployment with the police force around 2005 when he had been honorably discharged from the Army. Mr. Petty requested to be reinstated to the force in 2005 and completed the return-to-work process for officers who had been away from the force for an extended period. The return-to-work process included a release for military records and Mr. Petty had reported that he had been under investigation with the military; however, he failed to disclose details regarding the requirements of the research. Metro re-hired Petty but did not return him to his former position of patrol sergeant or a substantially similar position. Petty was relegated to answering phone calls and occasionally taking police reports (Walsh, 2010). Metro’s Office of Professional Accountability conducted an investigation into whether Petty lied on his return-to-work paperwork by admitting that he faced military charges in Kuwait, but did not disclose that he was accused of giving alcohol to an enlisted soldier and of manufacturing alcohol. This investigation was closed after a lieutenant met with Petty and concluded that any allegation that Petty was untruthful on his paperwork was unfounded (Walsh, 2010).

What was the legal issue in this case?

In the case of Petty v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, the key legal issue had been whether or not metro had violated Mr. Petty’s rights under USERRA. Mr. Petty had been delayed in returning to work based on the department’s return-to-work policy, Mr. Petty had not...