US sues Google after veteran allegedly lost accounts to deployment – Human Resources Director

He managed BlackRock and Bridgewater for Google. When he came back, someone else had them
The US government is suing Google for allegedly leaving a decorated Army Reserve officer with no real job after he returned from military deployment.
A federal complaint filed on October 29, 2026 in Manhattan accuses the tech giant of violating USERRA – the federal law that protects servicemembers' civilian employment when they return from duty.
The worker joined Google in December 2019 as a Key Account Executive in its Financial Services Group, leading Google Cloud sales to major financial clients. By January 2022, according to the complaint, he was managing Google Cloud accounts for BlackRock – which the filing describes as "one of the world's largest asset management firms" – along with Bridgewater Associates, "one of the world's largest hedge funds," and the US business of Credit Suisse.
He had earned a Bronze Star for his service in Iraq and a Meritorious Service Medal for his service in Afghanistan.
In May 2022, he took approved military leave to serve at US Army Cyber Command at Fort Gordon in Georgia. He was gone for a year.
When he came back, the accounts were gone too.
According to the complaint, Google reinstated the worker with the same pay and title in May 2023. But it did not return his client portfolios – or assign him any accounts at all. Another executive, identified in the filing only as "Employee-1," had taken over the BlackRock, Bridgewater, and Credit Suisse accounts during the deployment and kept them.
For roughly six months, the complaint states, the worker sat without defined job responsibilities, searching internally for a new role.
In January 2024, Google moved him to a Digital Assets sales team within the Financial Services group. Even there, according to the filing, he was supporting other people's client accounts rather than managing his own.
Then came a second period of military leave, from May 13 to June 14, 2024. On May 29 – while the worker was still on leave – Google informed him his position was being eliminated as part of a workforce reduction on the Digital Assets team. He had until August 27, 2024 to find another internal role, or he was out.
He applied for roughly ten positions. None came through.
Google terminated him on August 27, 2024. The complaint alleges that Employee-1 was not part of the same cuts and remains at Google, still working in cloud sales within the Financial Services Group.
The worker filed a claim with the US Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) in October 2024. VETS investigated, and in June 2025 advised Google it was in violation of the law. The matter was then referred to the Department of Justice.
USERRA requires employers to restore returning servicemembers to the role they would have held had they never left – or to one with comparable seniority, responsibilities, and pay. The DOJ's complaint argues that by stripping the worker of his accounts and leaving him without equivalent duties, Google fell well short of that standard.
The lawsuit – brought by the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York and the DOJ Civil Rights Division – seeks reinstatement to a comparable account management role, lost wages and benefits, and potentially liquidated damages if the court finds Google's non-compliance was willful. It also asks the court to order Google to implement USERRA training and compliance procedures across the company.
Google, a unit of Alphabet, told Reuters it disputes the claims. A company spokesperson said Google "takes compliance with employment laws, including USERRA, seriously and investigates allegations of workplace wrongdoing."
For HR teams, the case puts a fine point on what USERRA actually demands: not just the same title and salary, but the same responsibilities and career trajectory. Restoring the badge without the brief is not enough – and getting it wrong can bring the federal government to your door.
The allegations have not been tested, and no court has made any findings or rulings in the matter.

source