Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

Paid Leave For USERRA? We Recommend a Comparability Analysis

By Caroline Burnett, Amanda Cohen, Lily Duong & Benjamin C. Ho on February 27, 2023
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Soldiers dressed in army camouflage march in formation.
Filip Andrejevic, Unsplash

The Ninth Circuit recently addressed the issue of whether an employer is required to provide pay for employees taking short-term military leave when it offers other types of short-term paid leave. In Clarkson v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., the Ninth Circuit revived a class action claiming discrimination under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) for the failure to pay short-term military leave.

What is USERRA?

USERRA—a federal law applicable to both private and public employers—provides that a service member employee is entitled to the same “rights and benefits” during a military leave as similarly situated employees on non-military leave. Under USERRA , where the benefits of comparable non-military leaves differ, the employer must give the service member “the most favorable treatment” accorded to any comparable non-military leave.

Case Background

In Clarkson, a class of pilots argued that their employers should be required to provide paid short-term military leave because the employers offered paid non-military leaves for short-term absences for jury duty, bereavement, and sick leave. The district court disagreed, and granted summary judgment in favor of the employers, holding that military leave and non-military leave are not comparable as a matter of law due, in part, to the length and frequency of military leaves. 

The Ninth Circuit reversed. It concluded that the district court’s comparability analysis was fundamentally flawed because it compared all military leaves to other short-term non-military leave (rather than short-term military leave to other forms of short-term non-military leave). Because military leave may vary in length, with some military leaves lasting years, treating all types of military leave categorically would “render USERRA’s protections meaningless,” because “no other type of leave would look similar.” 

The Ninth Circuit also reaffirmed that when determining whether a non-military leave is comparable, an employer should consider the duration, purpose, and employee’s control over the timing of each leave, with duration being the most important factor. The Clarkson decision, however, was not ultimately decided on the merits, as the Ninth Circuit concluded the question of comparability is a matter of fact that should be presented to a jury to decide. 

The Ninth Circuit follows both the Third and Seventh Circuits in ruling that pay is a right and benefit under USERRA. However, in each federal appellate decision, the courts did not render a decision on the merits, and did not provide determinations as to whether certain leaves are comparable to military leaves as a matter of law.

Employer Takeaways

Although the law in this area remains unsettled, we recommend employers keep these lessons in mind when drafting paid leave policies. Because courts have indicated that the comparability analysis is a factual issue, when presented with a request for military leave, employers should (1) consider the duration of the leave, (2) review other paid leaves offered by the employer, and (3) consider whether to offer pay for the military leave when it appears another leave may be comparable based on duration, purpose, and control.

Photo of Caroline Burnett Caroline Burnett

Caroline Burnett is a Knowledge Lawyer in Baker McKenzie’s North America Employment & Compensation Group. Caroline is passionate about analyzing trends in US and global employment law and developing innovative solutions to help multinationals stay ahead of the curve. Prior to joining Baker…

Caroline Burnett is a Knowledge Lawyer in Baker McKenzie’s North America Employment & Compensation Group. Caroline is passionate about analyzing trends in US and global employment law and developing innovative solutions to help multinationals stay ahead of the curve. Prior to joining Baker McKenzie in 2016, she had a broad employment law practice at a full-service, national firm. Caroline holds a J.D. from the University of San Francisco School of Law (2008) and a B.A. from Brown University (2002).

Read more about Caroline BurnettEmailCaroline's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of Amanda Cohen Amanda Cohen
Read more about Amanda CohenEmail
Photo of Benjamin C. Ho Benjamin C. Ho
Read more about Benjamin C. HoEmail
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    The Employer Report
  • Organization:
    Baker McKenzie
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo