Comments about ‘Guardsman's firing spurs federal suit’

I once had a boss who refused to interview a friend of mine because he was in the reserves. I admit, even though he is a friend, that there were plenty of good reasons not hire this guy, but this was not one of them. I think that we need at least give these people a fighting chance.

It seems to me that the National Guard obligation was an obligation that was created after employment. The employer should not be obligated, under the law, to be subject to an obligation that did not exist at the time of employment.

Ben, I completely agree with you. In my opinion, a company with as a lot of people in the military is a very good company that I would have no trouble doing business with. However the article was about firing a man in the reserves, not hiring one. Too bad we don't know the whole story. I hope it works out for both men. I hate to see stories like this end badly. Then again, I hate to see stories like this period.

Sounds complicated. Of one thing you can be sure, Mossbarger won't be asking the attorney that gave him the bum advice to represent him in this new case.

Legally the guy did wrong, though his back was up against the wall, he lost his business because of the employee leaving though.

What is to be done now? I read another article that said, the business no longer exists, he can't hire him back.

This is a tough situation, the law ought to give some allowance for extreme hardship.

Of the employee that joined the Nat. Guard, was his motives due to the outlook of the company and looking to create income? I know it is a non-issue but if Mossbarger's statements are true, it sounds like Ortega was a key component of the business contract going through. Without him being around, the contract collapsed and killed the company.
I agree with the law but it seems on the statements of the story, that Mossbarger should be able to prove his case was not motivated by the Nat. Guard obligations.
Perhaps it is a case of semantics, where the contract goes kaput because the employee leaves for training. No contract, no work, no company. Hasta.
Tough for both sides for sure.

If Mossbarger did indeed consult an attorney (and I kind of wonder about that), he didn't consult a very good attorney. The statute isn't all that complicated, and the "hardship" provision doesn't apply to Mossbarger's situation but to the re-employment of a returning veteran.

If the employer's description of events is accurate, then the employee picked a strange time to enlist, that's for sure.

However, military service is something that should not influence an employer not to hire someone; and as such, whether the employee joined the service before or after being hired is irrelevant. The employer's obligation under the law remains the same, as it should.

I fear too many people in this country take our servicemen for granted, including some employers. They forget that without these men and their valiant service in the military, their business would not even be possible. Tyrants with evil, oppressive agendas (such as Hitler) would have long ago crushed any possibility of their exercising any right of free enterprise. It is for this reason that employers, by law as well as by moral obligation, are required to make exceptional and even extraordinary sacrifice to accomodate the military service obligations of these fine men.

I side with him on this case. It sounds like he had no choice, sense it obviously cost him his business. I think the guy who enlisted is looking for a free ride. One of those "the world owes me everything" kind of guys.

YEAH

Losing 50% of a company's employees and causing the company to fold sounds like a hardship to me. If there is such a clause in the law, it should certainly apply.

Sounds like the attorney is on the hook for malpractice, but the prosecuting attorney sounds as bad or even worse.