Record-breaking Military Leave Deal: Southwest Agrees to Pay $18.5M

Most HR teams already pay for jury duty. Many pay for bereavement leave. Some pay for short-term sick leave without much debate.

Courts are now finding that those everyday policy choices can quietly trigger paid military leave obligations, whether HR intended that result or not.

The $18.5 million settlement in Huntsman v. Southwest Airlines shows how quickly this issue can move from a line in the handbook to a class action with eight-figure exposure.

Does Unpaid Military Leave Violate USERRA?

In the Huntsman case, employees alleged the airline violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) by denying pay for short-term military leave of 14 days or fewer, while paying employees for other short absences, such as jury duty, bereavement leave, and sick time.

Southwest denied wrongdoing and maintained that military leave wasn’t comparable to those other forms of leave. Even so, the company agreed to a proposed $18.5 million settlement to resolve the case. On Dec. 10, 2025, a federal court in California granted preliminary approval for the agreement.

For HR, three aspects of the settlement are especially relevant: 

• Two lead plaintiffs will receive $25,000 each.
• Remaining class members will receive individual payments based on their rate of pay and qualifying military leave taken, with awards averaging about $4,400 after legal fees.
• Southwest will provide service-member employees with up to ten days of paid short-term military leave per calendar year, beginning in 2026.

The proposed $18.5 million agreement is the largest reported USERRA class action settlement to date.

“This agreement with Southwest Airlines marks a major inflection point in terms of how employers think about paid military leave,” Michael Scimone, a partner at Outten and Golden representing the employees, said in a statement. “We hope it sends a powerful message to the rest of the airline industry that paid short-term military leave is in everyone’s best interest.”

For employers outside aviation, the same logic applies wherever short paid absences are already in place. 

How ‘Comparable Leave’ Creates Risk for HR

The risk in cases like Huntsman turns on how HR defines and applies “comparable leave” in everyday policies.

When an employer pays for jury duty, bereavement leave, or other short absences, courts now expect employers to evaluate short-term military leave alongside those policies using the same comparability framework. Courts treat duration as the primary factor, with purpose and employee control over timing also considered. Frequency may still factor into the analysis, but it no longer carries the decisive weight many employers assumed. 

Recent decisions from the Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits – in cases involving American Airlines, United Airlines, and Alaska Airlines – have rejected arguments that short-term military leave can be treated differently simply because it occurs more often or is operationally inconvenient. In practical terms, these rulings now cover employers in at least 15 states and several U.S. territories. When military leave aligns with other paid short absences under the duration, purpose, and control factors, courts are increasingly willing to question employers’ decisions to deny pay.

For HR, this creates a problem. Policies that were written at different times, for different reasons, are now being read together. Decisions that once felt reasonable in isolation can look inconsistent when viewed side by side, especially once courts step in to do the comparison themselves.

That shift is why HR teams are now being forced to look more closely at what USERRA requires before touching any paid leave policy.

What the Law Requires

Against that backdrop, it helps to strip USERRA down to what it actually requires regarding pay. Importantly, there is no specific right to paid military leave under USERRA.

What it does require is equal treatment when an employer chooses to pay for comparable short-term non-military leave.

The law applies to nearly all employers, regardless of size, and covers employees serving in the Armed Forces, National Guard, Reserves, and certain federal service corps.

USERRA also guarantees:

• Reinstatement to the same or comparable job
• Protection of seniority, pay, and benefits
• Health coverage continuation for up to 24 months
• Pension and service credit protections
• Strict anti-retaliation rules

For paid leave disputes, courts apply the Department of Labor’s comparability test, focusing on:

• Duration of the leave, the most important factor
• Purpose of the leave
• Employee control over the timing

Under this framework, short-term military leave often aligns most closely with jury duty. Frequency, meaning how often the leave occurs, may be considered, but is no longer decisive.

Why Southwest’s Policy Is a Benchmark, Not a Mandate

To be clear, the 10 paid days of military leave in this settlement doesn’t create a new legal requirement. It reflects what one large employer has agreed to implement to reduce litigation risk and build internal consistency.

For HR leaders, the value is internal. This settlement gives HR a concrete reference point when:

• Assessing whether existing paid leave policies still align with current court interpretations
• Framing cost and legal exposure in discussions with finance and legal before claims arise
• Making deliberate policy changes instead of reacting under litigation pressure

The takeaway isn’t to copy Southwest’s policy. It’s to recognize that courts are now doing the side-by-side comparison that HR teams often postpone.

Next Steps for HR

The Huntsman settlement gives HR a clear signal to act before courts or plaintiffs force the issue. Practical next steps include: 

• Audit all paid short-term leaves of comparable duration together. Review jury duty, bereavement, court appearances, sick leave, and military leave as one policy set, not separate benefits owned by different teams.
• Apply the Department of Labor’s comparability test consistently and document how each factor was weighed. Evaluate per-instance duration first, then purpose and employee control over timing. Do not rely on how often a leave is used to justify different pay treatment.
• Pressure-test how HR and managers apply the policy. Inconsistent handling across locations or departments is often what turns a policy gap into a class claim.
• Document the rationale behind pay decisions. If HR believes certain leaves are not comparable, that reasoning should be written, consistent, and grounded in DOL guidance rather than operational preference.
• Loop in finance before finalizing changes. Paid-leave updates affect payroll planning, but litigation exposure and settlement costs affect budgets far more.
• Use plain, defensible language. If HR cannot explain the difference between paid jury duty and unpaid short-term military leave in one clear sentence, the policy likely needs revision.