Southwest Employees to Get $18.5 Million Settlement

San Francisco, CA On September 25, Southwest Airlines agreed to settle Jayson Huntsman v. Southwest Airlines Co., a proposed class action lawsuit, for $18.5 million. The California Labor Code provides considerable protection to California workers. However, the Southwest employees in Huntsman cited the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), a federal statute. That law specifically bars discrimination against civilian workers who also serve in the military.

Southwest Employees to Get .5 Million Settlement Each of the 2,791 identified class members is expected to receive roughly $4,421. In addition, Southwest has agreed to provide 10 days of paid military leave per year from 2026 to 2030. This last provision may ultimately have lasting effect throughout the airline industry, some of whom are also in litigation over military pay and leave issues.

No pay for short military stints

The lawsuit alleges that Southwest paid employees for absences including sick leave, bereavement leave and jury duty. The airline refused, however, to pay workers for absences of 14 days or fewer during short-term periods of military training or service, like drill weekends. This, plaintiffs claim, violated section 4316(b)of the USERRA.

Huntsman’s lawsuit follows a similarly-captioned 2017 action in a different court. The earlier lawsuit makes similar allegations but limits the class of plaintiffs to Southwest pilots. That lawsuit was settled in 2018 for $18.8 million. The more recent lawsuit expands the pool of litigants to all Southwest Airlines employees.

USERRA

Enacted in 1994, the USERRA is intended to minimize the disadvantages to veterans that happen when the service person must be absent from his or her civilian employment to serve in this country’s uniformed services. It makes major improvements to the Veterans’ Reemployment Rights Statute in protecting service member rights and benefits by clarifying the law and improving enforcement mechanisms. It also provides employees with Department of Labor assistance in processing claims.

USERRA covers virtually every individual in the country who serves in or has served in the uniformed services and applies to all employers in the public and private sectors, including Federal employers. To quote the Department of Labor, “the law seeks to ensure that those who serve their country can retain their civilian employment and benefits and can seek employment free from discrimination because of their service.” The USERRA also provides protection for disabled veterans, requiring employers to make reasonable efforts to accommodate the disability.

The USERRA is administered by the Labor Department through the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS). VETS provides assistance to individuals experiencing service-connected problems with their civilian employment and provides information about the Act to employers. VETS also assists veterans who have questions regarding Veterans’ preference in employment.

California Law, in general, is not limited to veterans, and the enforcement provisions are different. The California Military and Veterans Code is more specific.

California Military and Veterans Code

“Temporary military leave,” as defined by Section 395 of the California Military and Veterans Code is most commonly used for employees who are in the reserves and need to take time off to fulfill their annual training or duty requirements. Importantly, this leave is protected regardless of whether the employee serves voluntarily or involuntarily; even if an employee chooses to enlist in the reserves when they are already an employee of the agency, they are still entitled to this protected leave.

The big picture

Southwest’s agreement to provide 10 days of paid military leave per year is significant given that the only other airline to settle similar claims agreed to only four days of paid leave. United Airlines, American Airlines and Delta Air Lines are embroiled in litigation similar to Huntsman, continue to defend against similar claims and have not yet agreed to paid leave in any amount. Although the settlement produces no legal precedent, it may carry considerable weight in settlement negotiations.