Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, USERRA, VETERANS—S.D. Miss.: College baseball coach survives summary judgment against USERRA discrimination and retaliation claims, (Sep 18, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

Military status is a “motivating factor” if “one reason for the employer's actions was [the plaintiff's] membership, application for membership, service, application for service, or obligation for service in the uniformed services.”

An employer was denied its motion for summary judgment against an employee’s claims that he suffered discrimination and retaliation against him regarding employment decisions regarding his military deployment, ruled a federal district court in Mississippi. Here, the disputed material facts demonstrated that the employee’s military status could have been a “motivating factor” in the employer’s employment actions toward him. Accordingly, the court found that genuine issues of material fact exist as to the employee’s claims, with the exception of his Section 4316 claim, and his claim for punitive damages (Babineaux v. Southeastern Baptist College, No. 2:24-CV-3-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Sept. 16, 2025)).

On September 20, 2020, the employee entered a 12-month full-time employment contract with the employer to serve as its first head baseball coach. He is a former active-duty Marine and is currently an officer in the Army Reserves. In addition, the employee is a member of the Mississippi National Guard.

According to the employee, during the 2020-2021 baseball season, he invested $2,000 of his salary back into the program, which the employer promised to reimburse him during the 2021-2022 season, thereby increasing his salary from $22,500 to $24,500.

Deployment. On December 8, 2020, the Army Reserves ordered the employee to appear on May 24, 2021, for a 400-day active-duty deployment. He asserted that he promptly informed the employer of his military orders and that he intended to return to work following his military deployment. According to the employee, the college’s president acknowledged his upcoming deployment, gave him assurances that he could continue limited duties for the college, and assured him that he would be returned to full-time work after his release from active duty. Further, the employee alleged that the president assured him that the college intended to continue paying him his regular salary while he was deployed.

The employee alleged that after he reported for active duty on May 24, 2021, he continued coaching duties such as recruitment of players, development of upcoming seasons’ schedules, and negotiation of game contracts with other colleges. He asserted that on June 21, 2021, the college athletic director sent him a text message “demanding” that he agree to reduce his 2021-2022 salary to $18,000 because of his military service, because the assistant coaches were working more, and related that the salary reduction was “non-negotiable.”

USERRA complaint. On June 21, 2021, the employee filed a complaint with the United States Department of Labor because the reduction in salary appeared to be related to his military service. DOL advised him that the employer did not have any obligation to pay him during his deployment but was “legally” required to give his job back to him when he returned from deployment. According to the employee, when the employer became aware of the complaint it retaliated against him for exercising his USERRA rights by failing to pay him the agreed upon $18,000 sum for the 2021-2022 season. In June 2021, the employee informed the college that he could no longer feasibly perform work for the college while deployed.

Retaliatory conduct. Other alleged retaliatory conduct included a college official informing students that they could not rent housing from the employee and instead, steered students to other housing. The employer also deleted his college email account and erased communications confirming the payment agreement for the 2021-2022 season.

Additionally, the employee claimed that the athletic director took other retaliatory and harassing actions against him for exercising his USERRA rights prior to his release from active duty. The employee was released from federal active-duty orders and was assigned to active-duty training with his local Reserve unit on March 3, 2022. On April 12, 2022, while attending a baseball game at the college, the athletic director verbally confronted him in front of players and their parents about his USERRA complaint and the resulting investigation. The athletic director further retaliated against the employee by refusing to reactivate his original college email account.

On April 20, 2022, while the employee was still on active duty, the athletic director directed him to officially apply for reemployment. At that time, he informed the athletic director that he would return to work on August 13, 2022. He was instructed that he was not to act as a functionary for the baseball team because he was not an employee. While the employee and his wife were attending another baseball game at the college, the athletic director instructed a police officer to remove them from the game. Thereafter, the employee’s wife filed a formal complaint with the college president.

On May 14, 2022, the employee’s active-duty orders ended. Thereafter, he sought a 90-day delay for his return. He met with college officials about the athletic director’s behavior on May 16 and 19, 2022. On May 17, 2022, the athletic director resigned from the position. Thereafter, alleged the employee, he accepted reemployment and informed the college president that he would return on August 15, 2022.

New athletic director. During a meeting on June 23, 2022, with the new athletic director, it was suggested that the employee’s pay should be lowered because he served in the military and assistant coaches performed additional duties in his absence.

Rights after reemployment. The court first addressed the employee’s cause of action brought under Section 4316, which governs an employer’s obligations to an employee after reemployment. Section 4316(c)(1) provides that “a person who is reemployed by an employer under this chapter shall not be discharged from such employment, except for cause—within one year after the date of such employment, if the person’s period of service before the reemployment was more than 180 days.”

Here, the court agreed with the employer that this section only applies when a person is reemployed after military service or deployment but thereafter is denied certain employment benefits. In this case, the employee was never actually reemployed because no contract of employment was signed by him. Accordingly, the employer’s motions for summary judgment as to the employee’s claim regarding his reemployment rights was granted in part.

Punitive damages. The employer moved for summary judgment as to the employee’s claim for punitive damages. Courts have held that the “remedial scheme [of USERRA] conspicuously omits any recovery for mental anguish, pain and suffering, and punitive damages.” Accordingly, the court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment as to the employee’s punitive damages claim.

Contract offer. The employer contended that it offered the employee the same contractual amount for 2022-2023 as it had paid him in 2020-2021. Further, it contended that the employee was offered the same position he had previously occupied and offered him the same contract it had offered to other coaches. Because the employee did not immediately sign the contract it presented to him, the employer asserted that he “abandoned” his employment.

However, the court found the situation was much more nuanced. While the contractual amount offered to the employee for 2022-2023 was the same as 2020-2021, “the road leading to the ultimate offer and withdrawal of the employment contract was filled with bumps, twists, and turns,” said the court, and created genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. As such, the determination of the merits of the case was best made by a jury.

Discrimination claim. The employee alleged that the employer discriminated and retaliated against him in violation of 38 U.S.C. § 4311. Section 4311 “concerns discrimination against those in the military when making employment decisions.” Here, the disputed material facts demonstrated that the employee’s military status could have been a “motivating factor” in the employer’s actions toward him. The college’s athletic directors made multiple requests to the employee for him to take lower compensation due to his military service so that it could pay other coaches more money.

While the employer faulted the employee for his failure to “come by anytime” to discuss his contract, it failed to recognize that he still had military and other obligations during the 90-day period after his military discharge. Thus, the employer failed to present any evidence that it provided the employee with a firm deadline by which to sign the employment contract, or that his alleged “abandonment” was inconsistent with “the conduct rules, established policy, and general practices of the employer pertaining to an absence from scheduled work.”

Retaliation. The employee also asserted that the adverse employment action, coming just 10 days after he was initially presented with the employment contract on August 15, creates “temporal proximity” to establish “causation in a prima facie case of retaliation.” The employer summarily withdrew the offer of employment 10 days after it was presented without warning, and after the employee had requested additional time for review. Thus, the adverse employment action in this case presented circumstantial evidence that the employee’s exercise of his USERRA rights was a motivating factor in his termination.

Accordingly, the court found that genuine issues of material fact exist as to the employee’s claims, with the exception of his Section 4316 claim, and his claim for punitive damages.

The case is No. 2:24-CV-3-KS-MTP.

Judge: Starrett, K.

Attorneys: Daniel M. Waide (Johnson, Ratliff & Waide) for Jody Babineaux. Thomas M. Wright, Jr. (Anderson, Crawley & Burke) for Southeastern Baptist College. Benjamin B. Morgan (Burson, Entrekin, Orr, Mitchell & Lacey) for Richard E. Lopez.

Companies: Southeastern Baptist College

Cases: USERRAVeterans Retaliation RemediesDamages ContractClaims EvidenceDiscovery Procedure MississippiNews GCNNews