Valentine Akpa v. MPB Group Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied MPB Group Inc.'s motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment in Valentine Akpa's action under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. The court held that Akpa plausibly alleged discrimination based on military service, violations of USERRA's reemployment provisions, and termination without cause. The court also declined to dismiss his request for liquidated damages at the pleading stage.

Holdings

1. The court declined to convert Defendant's alternative motion for summary judgment under Rule 12(d) because Plaintiff's Rule 56(d) affidavits identified relevant discovery in Defendant's possession that could bear on genuine factual disputes.
2. Akpa plausibly alleged that MPB took adverse employment actions because of his military service, and the nineteen-day period between his return from active duty and termination was sufficient at the pleading stage to support an inference that military service was a motivating factor.
3. Akpa plausibly alleged entitlement to reemployment under §§ 4312 and 4313 by alleging timely notice of service, qualifying length of service, and a timely oral or written request for reemployment.
4. Akpa plausibly alleged a § 4316 claim notwithstanding the alternative allegation that he was never reemployed, because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 permits pleading inconsistent claims and the alleged termination occurred within 180 days after service without a stated cause.
5. The court declined to dismiss Akpa's request for liquidated damages at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the alternative motion for summary judgment should be converted from a Rule 12(b)(6) motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d).
2. Whether Akpa plausibly alleged that MPB took adverse employment action because of his military service in violation of 38 U.S.C. § 4311.
3. Whether Akpa plausibly alleged that he satisfied USERRA's notice, service-length, and timely-application requirements for reemployment under 38 U.S.C. §§ 4312 and 4313.
4. Whether Akpa could plead alternatively that MPB violated 38 U.S.C. § 4316 by terminating him within 180 days after reemployment without cause.
5. Whether Akpa's request for liquidated damages could be dismissed at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage.

Disposition

denied