Washington Supreme Court Clarifies USERRA Paid Leave Rights; District Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment in Bearden v. City of Ocean Shores

Following that ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted Travis Bearden’s motion for summary judgment on his denial-of-benefits claim for the October 2020 through September 2021 fiscal year, a period the City of Ocean Shores conceded he was owed.

Bearden, an Army reservist and Ocean Shores firefighter, sued the City in January 2021, alleging violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD).

The dispute centered on the City’s refusal to pay Bearden up to 21 days of military leave while he was on extended, active-duty military leave, based on the argument that he was not scheduled to work during that time.

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s earlier dismissal of Bearden’s core denial-of-benefits claim after certifying the statutory interpretation question to the Washington Supreme Court.

Bearden now seeks summary judgment on the City’s liability for his USERRA denial of benefits and discrimination claims, leaving the amount of his damages for the jury.

The City concedes Bearden is entitled to 21 days of paid leave for the 2020–2021 fiscal year but disputes entitlement for subsequent years, arguing Bearden cannot establish as a matter of law that he remained a City employee.

The district court denied summary judgment on Bearden’s claims for leave after October 2021, finding no evidence in the record that he remained a City employee during that period.

Bearden’s own evidence, including a 2021 expert report stating he had “no prospect” for continued employment and intended to seek alternative employment, contradicted his contention that he remained employed.

The court also denied summary judgment on Bearden’s USERRA retaliation claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the City’s failure to pay was motivated by his military status or its good-faith, albeit incorrect, reading of the statute.

Bearden’s argument that the City was judicially estopped from claiming he was not an employee was rejected, as the City’s prior success on his constructive discharge claim did not establish that he remained employed.