Minco products inc trial#

We review the evidence received at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict. Milhauser was cleared to return to civilian employment in May and reported to Minco on June 3, 2009. His last deployment concluded prematurely after he was hospitalized by a severe reaction to a vaccine, ending his military service. Between 20 he took three military leaves of absence, the last one beginning in March 2009. Milhauser started work as a maintenance technician at Minco in 2006. The district court 1 denied his motion and granted judgment to Minco, and Milhauser appeals. Milhauser then moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that there was not a legally sufficient basis for the verdict because termination is not a valid reemployment position under the statute. The case was tried to a jury which found for Minco.

В§В§ 4301 et seq., a statute requiring that returning veterans be reemployed in an appropriate position. (Minco) as part of a reduction in force, he brought this action under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. Murray, Lindner & Marsack, Milwaukee, WI, for DefendantвЂ“Appellee.ДЄfter Douglas Milhauser's employment was terminated by Minco Products, Inc. Redden, Fabian & May, Minneapolis, MN, for PlaintiffвЂ“Appellant. Decided: December 05, 2012Д«efore MURPHY, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. MINCO PRODUCTS, INC., DefendantвЂ“Appellee. United States Court of Appeals,Eighth Circuit.Дouglas MILHAUSER, PlaintiffвЂ“Appellant v.

Minco products inc