which would normally be excluded from the evidence in the trial anyway
Its already been included in the complaint.
If the complaint is accurate, rather than research their duties and rights under the act, they apparently chose to disregard and violate it.
That is the question, it is a big if, keep in mind this has already been investigated by the US Department of Labor with no adverse result. They are not only taking on the ex-employer, they have asked for congress to look into the Dept of Labor.
Something does not add up here.
formed the basis for a wrongful termination claim
If they for example breached the ANOs with the long term sick status, it can hardly be "wrongful". The "ignorance, arrogance, a combination of the two, or something else entirely no one knows" could be on either side.
I disagree that CX should be paying for his sick leave for an injury he incurred whilst employed under second job. In their complaint it would appear he has failed to provide CX with documents which would "activate" rights.
I saw nothing in the complaint they supplied CX with the correct documentation to "activate" his rights for reemployment, reading between the lines he was still recovering on the US Navy dime from his injury, and therefore still active military service.
This DOL guide says nothing about the employer having to reemploy someone on sick leave
http://www.dol.gov/vets/whatsnew/uguide.pdf
I agree the complaint sounds damming, that the role of the lawyer, does not mean it will stick or it is accurate. The smell test of the US Department of Labor washing their hands of it says a lot in my view.