Skip to main content

Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against Mort’s Concrete and Owner, to Enforce Employment Rights of Wisconsin Army National Guardsman

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department today filed a lawsuit against Mort’s Concrete Inc. and its owner, Kevin Mortimer, for allegedly violating the rights of Wisconsin Army National Guardsman Rocco Sylvester Jr. by failing to properly re-employ him when he returned from active military duty in Iraq. The lawsuit alleges that Mort’s Concrete and Mortimer violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), which, subject to certain limitations, requires that individuals who leave their civilian jobs to serve in the military be promptly re-employed by their civilian employers in the same positions, or in positions comparable to the positions they would have held had their employment not been interrupted by military service.

According to the department’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court in Madison, Wis., Mort’s Concrete and Mortimer violated USERRA by not reemploying Sylvester in his previous position as a full-time construction foreman upon his return from active duty. Instead, Mort’s Concrete and Mortimer re-employed Sylvester in a non-supervisory laborer position with significantly fewer work hours. The department seeks to recover the lost wages and benefits that Sylvester would have received had he been properly re-employed as a full-time foreman.

"Members of the military who put their lives on the line to protect our nation deserve to know they will not be penalized for their service and their bravery," said Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "The Justice Department is committed to protecting the rights of those who, through their bravery and sacrifice, secure the freedom and civil rights of all Americans."

The Labor Department’s Veterans’ Employment and Training Service investigated and attempted to resolve Sylvester’s USERRA complaint before referring it to the Justice Department for litigation.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more