By Jim Cline and Amy Liden
In City of Ocean Shores, the Washington Supreme Court held that public employees who serve in the military are entitled to 21 days of paid military leave defined in Washington law each military fiscal year, regardless of whether they are on active duty or regularly scheduled to work.
Travis Bearden is a firefighter and paramedic for the City of Ocean Shores. He also serves in the U.S. Army Reserves. In 2020, Bearden reported for active duty for 273 days. However, he did not receive 21 days of paid military leave for that period. Bearden emailed the fire chief to inquire why he had not received paid leave.
The fire chief responded that Bearden was not entitled to the 21 days of paid military leave because the city believed he was no longer in the reserves and was now on active duty and therefore considered an employee of the military. The fire chief forwarded the email to a human resources specialist, who added that Bearden had no scheduled workdays and was thus ineligible for paid military leave.
Bearden sued the city, arguing they violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) by denying him Washington state required paid military leave while he was away on active duty. The federal court referred the issue to the Washington Supreme Court as it involved a question of Washington state law. The City of Ocean Shores claimed that the intent of the State law was to provide 21 days to reserve officers, not active-duty officers.
The Washington Supreme Court rejected that claim and ruled that employees are entitled to the paid 21 days of military leave even if they are not scheduled to work during the leave period due to active duty. The court reasoned that the paid military leave statute does not distinguish between employees based on the type of service, duration of leave, or whether the leave was voluntary. In this case, Bearden remained an employee of the city while on military leave. It ruled that it was irrelevant that he was on active duty, away for 273 days, or that he chose to serve voluntarily.
The court also noted that the statute does not make work scheduling a condition for receiving paid military leave. The court highlighted the policy concern that if employers could deny paid military leave to employees not on the schedule, they could simply remove those employees from the schedule upon notification of military leave and avoid paying them. This would incentivize employees to delay informing their employers about upcoming military service, undermining the statute’s purpose—to provide a benefit to service members employed in the public sector. The court summarized its ruling as follows:
“[T]o 21 days of paid military leave during each military fiscal year, without distinguishing between reserve or active-duty status and without any limitation on the duration of the military service. . . [T]he schedule does not limit the employee’s annual entitlement to paid military leave. . .”
Therefore, a public employee is entitled to paid military leave—even if they are not scheduled to work while serving an extended active-duty assignment.
The City’s objection here is somewhat understandable. The seeming purpose of the law is to ensure that employees receive sufficient and paid release time to fulfill their military obligations while in reserve status. But the law does not explicitly state that the requirement only applies to reserves.
** Visit our Premium Website for more information on Veteran and Reservist Discrimination. **
