Monroe v. Standard Oil Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that USERRA’s predecessor statute did not require employers to provide special benefits unavailable to other employees to military reservists
• holding, under the version of the Act in effect at the time of Garner’s termination, that the Act prohibited only those acts of discrimination that were motivated solely by an employee’s reserve status
• detailing history of predecessor statutes that provided reemployment rights for veterans and employment rights for reservists
• describing the need to provide servicemembers with statutory rights first in 1941, and then again in 1951 to “strengthen the Nation’s Reserve Forces.”
• affirming the denial of plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the grounds that 38 U.S.C. § 2021 et seq. does not mandate that an employer establish special work schedule accommodations for an employee-reservist.
• \employers may not rid themselves of ... inconveniences and productivity losses by discharging ... employee-reservists solely because of their military obligation\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Monroe v. Standard Oil Co.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Monroe v. Standard Oil Co.
  N.D. Ohio· 1978-02-22· cited 11×
• Monroe v. Standard Oil Co.
  Supreme Court· 1980-11-03