CHICAGO, IL (Military.com) — A U.S. Army National Guard pilot has sued United Airlines for allegedly violating his federal rights as a service member after he was denied legally protected family leave and disenfranchised from promotional opportunities and accrued retirement benefits.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Illinois, claims that United violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) as it pertains to Nathan Rogers, a warrant officer in the Army National Guard and a United Airlines employee since 2022. He remains a United employee, working as an aircraft technician.
USERRA federally allows by law the protection of jobs and benefits of individuals who leave civilian employment to serve in the military, ensuring they can return to their employment without penalty. The FMLA is a federal law that allows eligible employees to take unpaid, job-protected leave for certain family and medical reasons while keeping their health insurance coverage.
“On USERRA, the burden is on the employer to show compliance with the statute because the directive is to incur military service,” Sean Timmons, an attorney at Tully Rinckey, told Military.com. “So once the claim is made, they have to show they complied with the law—not the other way around.”
The lawsuit states that United provides pay or comparable non‑seniority benefits for comparable non‑military absences, such as jury duty and company‑requested witness service.
“We’re kind of bulls-eyed between two major problems,” Timmons said. “One, they pay jury duty but they didn’t pay him. And two, when he returned, they didn’t put him in the place he would have been in had he not left.
“The rest of the claims will need fact development, discovery, other evidentiary proof to establish foundations to get a jury verdict. But right off the top, I got them running through a stop sign and blowing through a red light on camera. They’re guilty as sin, it’s clear as day. Their own documents will prove they violated the statute.”
Negative Impacts After Fighting for ‘Basic Protections’
Rogers has served in the Army since 2016 and was selected to attend U.S. Army pilot training. He spent extended periods on active duty before returning to his civilian role in December 2024.
His claim against United is that after he requested a transition period following his military service due to urgent family circumstances, including complications related to his wife’s pregnancy and illness affecting their young child, that request was denied by the airline. They also purportedly made him return to his job immediately despite legal protections provided to service members leaving active duty.
Rogers alleges he was placed at the bottom of a field trip/overtime assignment list, costing him valuable work opportunities, overtime, and income tied to those positions.
“I served my country and came home expecting the laws that protect service members to be honored,” Rogers said in a statement provided to Military.com. “Instead, I felt like I had to fight for the basic protections that were supposed to allow me to return to work, support my family, and bond with my newborn son.
“No service member should have to choose between answering the call to serve and being there for their wife and children.”
Timmons, who took up the case last fall, estimated that the financial impact on his client and his family is “in the hundreds of thousands of dollars over the long-term duration of his lifespan” when lost retirement benefits and long-term cumulative interest are taken into account.
He said that efforts to “work amicably” with United’s lawyers on this situation failed. A spokesperson for United, when asked by Military.com about the merits of the lawsuit, declined to comment to Military.com.
“It’s kind of silly that these employers just want to ignore the statutory protections of USSERA and pretend the law doesn’t exist,” Timmons said. “It’s quite bad. I think part of it is an indictment of our society. These general counsels of these major corporations are all Ivy League-educated lawyers who have no military affiliation or understanding or background, so they’re kind of obviously aloof about USERRA.
“They don’t know anything about it, and they have no conceptual understanding of it. And the law is very technically complex and has a lot of predicate requirements that they’re just not familiar with. So, their own lawyers don’t know what they’re doing.”
