The lawsuit involved the city of Mount Vernon, IL. Several city police officers were also members of the National Guard. In the past, the city had allowed the officers to use their vacation, sick or personal leave to attend National Guard training. This allowed the officers to collect their full city salary, plus military pay, for the days they spend in training.

Also, Mt. Vernon allowed the officers to rearrange their schedules when a typical work day conflicted with National Guard obligations. Mt. Vernon would “bump” other employees, allowing National Guard members to arrange their days off so that on National Guard weekends they could receive both city and military pay, without using vacation time.

This often meant National Guard employees were permitted to reschedule themselves so they were off weekends, even if another employee had requested off prior to the rescheduling.

In 2006, Mt. Vernon reversed its policy, and although National Guard members were still given time off, they were required to take it unpaid or use a vacation day.

Shortly after, one of the National Guard members sued the city, claiming its new policy violated the USERRA.

Who do you think won this case?

The decision:

The court ruled in favor of the city.

In its decision, the court said that the USERRA requires employers to offer the same benefits to National Guard (and others active military) members that are offered to other employees — but employers aren’t required to grant special privileges or benefits to members of the military.

Even though Mt. Vernon had given National Guard members preferential treatment in the past, it was allowed to reverse that policy.

Note: Under the USERRA employers must allow members of the military to take time off for National Guard duty and training. But time off was not the issue here. It was whether the employees would have to use sick or vacation days in order to receive their full city salaries, plus military pay.

In addition, members of the military are also entitled reinstatement after their service ends, as well as the benefits and promotions they would’ve received if they’d been on the job.

Source: Crews v. City of Mt. Vernon, et al., U.S. Crt. of Appeals, 7th Cir., S.D. of IL, No. 08-2435, 6/4/09.

If an employee makes racist posts to a private Web site and the company takes no action, is it guilty of allowing discrimination and harassment?

A group of African-American officers has filed a lawsuit against the Philadelphia Police Department, claiming a Web site founded by a fellow officer and used by many other cops has led to a hostile work environment.

The site was created by a Philadelphia police officer in 2000 as a place where officers could talk about crime, police news and gossip, as well as promote local events, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports. But certain news stories often elicit racist comments from some of the users.

For example, the phrase “ghetto monkey faces” was used to describe a group of minority children involved in a discrimination suit against a local swim club. (Incidentally, the law firm representing the African-American police officers is also involved in that case.) Another post was made with the headline “Guns don’t kill people, dangerous minorities do.”

The site is not formally affiliated with the department, and the creator said he does not maintain the site on city time. But the complainants claim the department is aware of the site and has allowed posting to continue, which has created a hostile environment in the workplace. Also, the officers claim the site’s users frequently post comments while at work.

The site’s creator is also named in the suit. He said he disagrees with the racist comments, but did not want to limit discussion and was never asked to take anything off the site.

Past complaints about the site have not been acted on by the department, the plaintiffs say. The department says it can’t discipline employees for posts they make on a private Web site.

Lawyers warn that companies do have a responsibility to prevent harassment even when it takes place outside of work on a site not affiliated with the employer. We’ll keep you posted as the case develops.

What do you think? Is the police department for allowing a hostile work environment to develop? Or did they make the right choice in not disciplining employees for conduct that wasn’t work-related?

Give us your opinion in the comments section below.

Police in Kingston, Ontario, were called to the scene by a man who claimed two thugs assaulted him on his way to work and tried to steal his wallet.

The man had a swollen lip and a possible broken nose, the Whig Standard reports.

After questioning him, the police began noticing holes in his story. Eventually, he broke down and told the truth: He’d punched himself in the face several times and concocted the mugging story to use as an excuse to skip work.

Police didn’t release the name of the man’s employer, but the officer who questioned him said, “I can only assume that they didn’t have a great sick plan where he works.”

In the end, the cops were kind enough to give the “victim” what he wanted. He got the day off — but he had to spend the day in jail for filing a false police report.

What’s the craziest thing you’ve ever seen an employee do for a day off? Let us know in the comments section below.

Police in Kingston, Ontario, were called to the scene by a man who claimed two thugs assaulted him on his way to work and tried to steal his wallet.

The man had a swollen lip and a possible broken nose, the Whig Standard reports.

After questioning him, the police began noticing holes in his story. Eventually, he broke down and told the truth: He’d punched himself in the face several times and concocted the mugging story to use as an excuse to skip work.

Police didn’t release the name of the man’s employer, but the officer who questioned him said, “I can only assume that they didn’t have a great sick plan where he works.”

In the end, the cops were kind enough to give the “victim” what he wanted. He got the day off — but he had to spend the day in jail for filing a false police report.

What’s the craziest thing you’ve ever seen an employee do for a day off? Let us know in the comments section below.

The Connecticut Department of Development Services placed the employee on leave after pills were found in a cake served at the home. The Department is investigating, according to the Republican-American.

A spokesman says the pills were an antihistamine.

The employee told state police her prescription bottle tipped over while she was making the cake. She says she didn’t realize some of the pills fell into the batter. Police haven’t filed charges.

Louisiana State Police investigators say they’ve arrested two auxiliary members of the Grand Isle Police Department and one other man on suspicion of looting gasoline.

Police responded to a theft of fuel from the Better Buy Shell Station in Grand Isle.

State police took over the investigation when it was determined that two suspects were the auxiliary officers.

According to state police, the suspects admitted the thefts during an interview and were not on duty at the time of the theft.

Stahl pleaded guilty to theft for stealing the sandwiches which were worth $29.45.

Under his sentence from state Superior Court, Stahl will have to pay $100 and he loses his job.

Prosecutor Robert Bianchi said this case shows “the fact that no one is above the law.”

Defense attorney Edward Bilinkas said Stahl “made a mistake and has taken responsibility.”

A federal law that ensures employees can return to their jobs after being called to service in the U.S. military mandates that a police department has to hire an officer back — even though he was charged with conduct unbecoming an officer.

Brian Petty was a police officer for the Metropolitan Government of Nashville-Davidson County. He left the department for active duty with the U.S. Army and sought reemployment with the department after completion of his military service.

Simple, give him his job back, right? Actually, it was more complicated than that.

While serving in Kuwait, the military charged Petty with violation of a lawful order and conduct unbecoming an officer.

The charges came after Petty’s quarters were inspected. The inspector turned up a five-gallon can Petty was using to make wine.

Petty admitted he was making wine and said it was “mainly” to give to a local farmer so he’d help cut down trees. However, Petty also said he eventually might drink some of the wine himself.

Petty was also accused of offering alcohol to enlisted soldiers, something he also admitted.

When he appeared before a military judge, Petty offered to resign “for the good of the service.” He was relieved of his command, and the Army formally dismissed all charges against him.

On an official military form, Petty’s discharge was characterized as “under honorable conditions.”

He asks for his civilian job back

When Petty returned from overseas, he asked to return to his police department position as a patrol sergeant.

The department had a return-to-work procedure that applied to all officers who had been away from work for some time, for whatever reason. The procedure includes a personal history update questionnaire, a medical exam, a computer voice stress analysis, a drug screening and a debriefing with a department psychologist. For those returning from the military, they must authorize the department to be able to access their military records.

Petty provided his discharge form, which provided some but not all the information about the military’s discipline action against him.

Then the department launched an investigation into whether he’d been completely truthful in submitting his paperwork. It also denied his request to moonlight as a security guard — a job that he had before leaving for overseas.

Petty filed suit alleging the department’s return-to-work requirements and investigation violated his rights under the Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Petty alleged that the department delayed rehiring him, didn’t return him to the position to which he was entitled and denied him the ability to work off-duty security jobs.

The department argued the purpose of the return-to-work rules is to make sure the person is still physically, emotionally and temperamentally qualified to be a police officer.

But the court ruled for Petty, saying that USERRA “supersedes any contract, agreement, policy, plan, practice, or other matter that reduces, limits or eliminates in any manner any right or benefit provided by this chapter.”

What do you think of the court’s ruling? Let us know by sending a message in the Comments Box.

Chief Superintendent Colin Terry, who had trained police in Afghanistan, was photographed wearing the costume just days before the seventh anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

The case has been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission which has issued a preliminary statement: “Whilst we believe his actions were misguided rather than malicious, they were clearly inappropriate.”

The Guardian quotes Terry as saying, “I am quite horrified that someone would see this negatively.” He adds that he didn’t mean to cause offense.

A Foreign Office spokesman has already said Terry won’t be going back on any European Union training missions.

A police officer guarding former British Prime Minister Tony Blair left her loaded gun in a Starbucks. A Starbucks employee found the gun and turned it in.

The Sun newspaper reported that the gun was left on the floor of a restroom stall.

An investigation has been launched into the incident and the officer. The unidentified officer has been relieved of her duties while the investigation is underway.

The officer realized she misplaced the gun about 30 minutes after leaving it at the coffee shop. It was eventually linked to her through its serial number.