CHICAGO, IL (Stars & Stripes) — United Airlines violated the protected employment rights of a Hawaii Army National Guard member while he attended flight school by not allowing the time in military service to count toward employment time with the company, according to a lawsuit filed in Illinois. This hindered the officer from using another form of protected leave to support his pregnant wife and child.
Warrant Officer Nathan Rogers filed the lawsuit last month in federal court citing violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, known commonly as USERRA, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. The first offers employment protection during military service obligations, and the latter offers leave to care for family members.
United Airlines, which is headquartered in Chicago, declined Wednesday to comment on the lawsuit.
Rogers, 36, has served in the Army since 2016, and he began work as an aircraft technician at United in January 2022. About a year later he was selected for helicopter pilot training, which required him to go on active duty for extended periods of time.
When he returned to his civilian role in December 2024, he was denied a 14-day window afforded through USERRA between the end of his military service and the return to civilian work. United instead demanded he return the next business day.
Rogers had hoped to use that time to support his wife, who began to experience pregnancy complications, so he asked if he could use the Family and Medical Leave Act to care for her and their 2-year-old son. This request also was denied.
Back at the job, Rogers found that any seniority he once held for specific jobs that led to career advancement or overtime opportunities was gone, according to the lawsuit.
Rogers in April 2025 began to ask about family leave again as he prepared for the birth of his son but was told a second time he did not qualify. The family leave act requires an employee to have a year on the job prior to using the benefit and 1,250 hours worked.
“I served my country and came home expecting the laws that protect service members to be honored,” Rogers said in a statement. “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.”
USERRA requires that military leave count toward time in employment, which should have meant that Rogers could use the family leave act, according to the lawsuit. It also should have protected any seniority Rogers held and even afforded that he be positioned where he should have expected to have advanced to had military service not interrupted his employment.
“Federal law is clear: employers cannot penalize employees for fulfilling their military obligations,” Michelle Salermo, an associate at the law firm Tully Rinckey and counsel for Rogers, said in a statement. “Nathan Rogers answered the call to serve his country, and when he returned, he faced reduced career opportunities and was denied the protections that exist specifically to support service members and their families. This case seeks not only to make our client whole but to ensure accountability and compliance with the law.”
United also failed to provide Rogers with other benefits protected by USERRA, such as profit-sharing and retirement contributions, according to the lawsuit. This was required because United does provide this to employees on leave for jury duty, said Sean Timmons, lead counsel on Rogers’ lawsuit.
If an employer is going to cover benefits, including pay, for another type of absence such as jury duty, it must give service members equal benefits for military leave, he said.
“The circuit court has already told United that you’ve got to do both. You can’t pay for one and not pay for the other,” Timmons said. “United has not adjusted their policy.”
