[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-11621 ____________________

THADDAEUS MYRICK, in his official capacity as Police Officer for the City of Hoover, Alabama, NICHOLAS D. BRADEN, in his official capacity as Police Officer for the City of Hoover, Alabama, JESSIE POPEE, in his official capacity as Police Officer for the City of Hoover, Alabama, KENNETH L. FOUNTAIN, in his official capacity as Police Officer for the City of Hoover, Alabama, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus USCA11 Case: 22-11621 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 06/08/2023 Page: 2 of 21

2 Opinion of the Court 22-11621

CITY OF HOOVER, ALABAMA,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:19-cv-01728-MHH ____________________

Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and CONWAY,∗ District Judge. CONWAY, District Judge: Military reservists play a vital role in our nation’s defense policy. When called to service, these men and women are expected to leave their civilian jobs, sometimes for years on end. To alleviate this burden, Congress enacted the Uniformed Services Employ- ment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). 38 U.S.C. § 4301(a). Under USERRA, employers must provide the same rights and benefits to employees on military leave that they provide to similarly situated employees on comparable forms of non-mili- tary leave. Id. § 4316(b)(1)(B).

∗ Honorable Anne C. Conway, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. USCA11 Case: 22-11621 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 06/08/2023 Page: 3 of 21

22-11621 Opinion of the Court 3

Thaddaeus Myrick, Nicholas Braden, Jessie Popee, and Ken- neth Fountain (collectively, the Officers) worked as police officers for the City of Hoover, Alabama. They also served as military re- servists. Over a two-decade span, the Officers were summoned to active-duty service a combined thirteen times. While away, Hoover did not provide the Officers the same holiday pay and accrued ben- efits that it gave employees on paid administrative leave. This dis- parate treatment prompted the Officers to sue Hoover under USERRA. And it led the district court to grant summary judgment for the Officers. Hoover asks us to reverse the district court’s judgment for two reasons. First, Hoover argues that the Officers are not similar to employees placed on paid administrative leave. Second, Hoover asserts that military leave is not comparable to paid administrative leave. We disagree on both points. Therefore, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND

We begin by describing the relevant portions of Hoover’s leave policy. We then turn to the events precipitating this lawsuit and the litigation that followed. A. Hoover allows employees on “paid status” to accrue ben- efits and collect holiday pay Hoover offers its employees various benefits, two of which are pertinent to t