He served 11 months, came back to party planning and a promotion door that allegedly shut
A Navy reservist says his employer benched him after active duty - then used his service as the reason to pass him over for promotion.
That is the core of a lawsuit filed June 29, 2026, in federal court in Maryland by Hugh Yeomans against Accenture Federal Services. The complaint alleges the company violated USERRA, the federal law that guarantees returning service members their jobs back as though they never left.
Yeomans, a Navy Reserve lieutenant, joined the firm in March 2022 when it acquired his former employer, Novetta. He worked as a program manager. According to the filing, he oversaw two programs, supervised about 12 people, and managed more than $4 million in annual project funds. One contract listed him as "key personnel."
In November 2022, active-duty orders called him away for roughly 11 months. He returned in November 2023, and the complaint says he gave proper notice in both directions.
What happened next is the heart of the case. On his return, Yeomans alleges, he was told he would not be put back on his old program. For five months, the filing says, he supervised no one and touched no client-facing work. Instead he was assigned to plan the holiday party, write a newsletter article, and lead a recruiting push. While he was away, the complaint claims, colleagues who had not deployed were promoted into roles he once held.
Then came the promotion issue. Yeomans alleges that in December 2024 his supervisor told him he "did not have sufficient time back from active duty" for a senior manager promotion, and that he was "not considered" in the December 2023 or December 2024 cycles. The complaint argues that explanation tied his career squarely to his time in uniform. It also alleges a different senior manager asked him, "so, when are you going back on Navy duty?"
The legal engine here is USERRA's "escalator principle." The idea is simple: a returning reservist climbs back on the career ladder where they would have been had they stayed, not where they left off. Yeomans says that never happened - two years on, he claims, he was supervising five people on one program instead of the twelve across two he ran before.
For HR teams, the case is a useful warning. Handing a returning service member a job is not the same as meeting USERRA's standard. The complaint's argument is that a lesser role, a frozen career, and a promotion denial blamed on service time can each be a violation on their own. The alleged remarks raise the stakes: USERRA only requires that military service be a "motivating factor" in a negative decision, so comments linking service to a missed promotion are the kind of detail that decides these disputes.
Yeomans is asking for back pay at the senior manager level, double damages for what he calls willful conduct, interest, and legal fees.
These are allegations. No court has ruled on any of the claims.
