Wamsley, a National Guard member hired by the Bedford County Juvenile Detention Center in April 2023, informed JDC Director Kellee Smith of his upcoming training obligations during the hiring process. Smith assured him the county would accommodate his schedule, which included weekend drills and two-week training periods.

The dispute centers on Wamsley’s June 2023 leave. On the first day of his two-week training period, Smith emailed HR representative Shanna Boyette stating Wamsley “isn’t going to work out.” While not immediately terminated, Smith later ended his employment on July 7, 2023, after Wamsley reported falling six feet onto his back during training and requested a doctor’s note to return.

Wamsley alleges discrimination, retaliation, and failure to reemploy under USERRA §§ 4311 and 4312. He argued that the one-day gap between his leave start date and Smith’s termination email, combined with a thirteen-day gap between his injury report and actual firing, established temporal proximity sufficient to infer discriminatory motive.

Judge Curtis L. Collier held that while the county had a ninety-day probationary period, the close timing between Wamsley’s protected activity and adverse actions raised a genuine issue of material fact. The court noted that Sixth Circuit precedent supports finding causation based on proximity periods as short as two weeks.

The court also rejected the county’s argument that Wamsley failed to report back for reemployment. Under USERRA, the reporting deadline is tolled if an employee is hospitalized or convalescing from a service-related injury. Wamsley provided deposition testimony and photographs of himself in the hospital, which the court found sufficient to create a factual dispute over whether he was injured and required recovery time.

Regarding the county’s proffered legitimate reasons for termination—threatening detainees, eating their food, and visiting his girlfriend during shifts—the court found genuine disputes of material fact. Wamsley denied eating the food and stated with “100% certainty” his girlfriend did not appear at work. The court also noted uncertainty over whether the county would have terminated him solely based on the alleged threats.

The court denied the motion for summary judgment, allowing Wamsley’s USERRA claims to proceed.