Opinion
6:08-CV-1046.
October 13, 2010
GREG T. RINCKEY, ESQ., KILEY D. SCOTT, ESQ., DOUGLAS J. ROSE, TULLY RINCKEY, PLLC, Attorneys for Plaintiff, Albany, NY.
THOMAS M. WITZ, ESQ., WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN DICKER, LLP, Attorneys for Defendants, Albany, NY.
BRYAN J. GOLDBERGER, ESQ., GOLDBERGER AND KREMER, Attorneys for Defendants, Albany, NY.
ORDER
Plaintiff sued the defendants pursuant to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 ("USERRA"), 38 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq. Defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. (Docket No. 28). Plaintiff opposes. (Docket No. 33). Defendants have replied. (Docket No. 35).
Viewing the facts most favorable to the nonmoving plaintiff as, of course, must be done in a Rule 56 motion, he has clearly set forth direct and circumstantial evidence which creates material questions of fact for a jury. The issues include whether plaintiff was denied benefits of employment, promotion, and if he was subjected to a hostile work environment because of his military status. Questions of fact also exist as to whether the defendants had a policy in place to protect against violations of USERRA, and if so, whether plaintiff failed to utilize said policy.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED, that defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2010
Utica, New York.