On April 18, 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice ("D.O.J.") filed a lawsuit under Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 ("USERRA") against Gulfstream Academy of Aeronautics, Inc. ("GAA1") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of an ...
read more >
On April 18, 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice ("D.O.J.") filed a lawsuit under Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 ("USERRA") against Gulfstream Academy of Aeronautics, Inc. ("GAA1") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of an employee who was also a member of the Air Force Reserves. The D.O.J. sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
The events leading up to the complaint are as follows. Defendant hired the employee, a member of the Air Force Reserves, as the Director of Flight School Operations on May 8, 2000 and he was subsequently promoted to General Manager. As a member of the Air Force Reserve, the employee performed mandatory military duties one weekend a month, in addition to an annual tour of duty. Between May 2000 and September 2000, one of the defendants made negative comments about the employee's military duty obligation. Based on comments he received, the employee took a leave from the Reserve in September 2000 fearing that he might lose him job if he continued his military activity. The employee rejoined the Reserve in March 2002. On or about April 2002, he informed the defendant that his mandatory Reserve duty was scheduled for May 19-20, 2002. In response, Defendant stated "I'll have to see about that," or words to that effect.
In mid-May 2002, the employee notified the defendant of his annual tour of duty on June 3-7, 2002. On May 21, 2002, GAA1 changed its name to Gulfstream Air Charter, Inc. and at the same time, defendant Thomas P. Cooper established two new corporations, Gulfstream Academy of Aeronautics, Inc. ("GAA2") and Gulfstream Training Academy. The employee then worked for GAA2, performed the same job duties and retained the same job title at GAA2 as he did at GAA1. On May 28, 2002, the employee reminded defendant of his upcoming annual tour of duty. On the same day, the defendant notified him that he was terminated from employment at GAA2, effective immediately. On May 29, 2002, in a meeting with the employee, defendant told him that "since Villalobos had reserve obligations, Villalobos was the logical choice to let go" or words to that effect.
The parties evidently entered into a Settlement Agreement, and on August 10, 2005, the district court (Magistrate Judge Laura S. Snow) dismissed the case with prejudice, but retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
We do not have the Settlement Agreement and we have no further information at this time.Hyun Jeong Yang - 11/05/2007