Feliciano v. Department of Transportation
Case Overview
Cecilio Feliciano, a federal employee and Army Reserve officer, claimed the FAA discriminated against him because of his military service in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. The Supreme Court clarified USERRA's burden-of-proof framework, holding that the statute requires only that military status be a motivating factor in the adverse action, after which the full burden shifts to the employer.
The Facts
Feliciano worked for the FAA while serving as an Army Reserve officer who took periodic leave for military duty. He applied for promotions and alleged supervisors viewed his Reserve obligations as a burden, influencing their decisions. The Merit Systems Protection Board and Federal Circuit applied a standard requiring Feliciano to show more than motivating-factor causation before the burden shifted to the agency, a framework the Supreme Court found inconsistent with USERRA's text.
The Application
Feliciano's allegations fit squarely within the motivating-factor standard: evidence that supervisors viewed his Reserve obligations as a burden and that this perception influenced promotion decisions meets the threshold for establishing military service as a motivating factor. Under the prior framework applied by the lower courts, Feliciano had to prove more than what USERRA's text required before the agency's burden was triggered, placing him in the difficult position of having to show causation beyond what the statute demanded. The Supreme Court's clarification means the FAA must now defend its promotion decisions by proving they would have been made in the absence of his Reserve service—a significantly more demanding burden on the employer. This shift recognizes that military service need not be the sole or primary driver of an adverse action, only one influence among others, to activate statutory protection.
The Conclusion
**Feliciano clarifies that USERRA uses a motivating-factor causation standard: an employee need only show military status influenced the decision, after which the full burden of the same-decision defense rests with the employer.** The ruling aligns the law with USERRA's text and strengthens protections for the approximately one million federal employees who also serve in the reserve components, reversing a framework that had made it harder for reservists to pursue discrimination claims.
No circuit court data for this case.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support