or benefit provided [under the statute].” Id. at § 4302(b). As the district court correctly noted, “the corollary to this proposition, supported by USERRA’s remedial scheme and legislative history, is that the federal court lacks jurisdiction over a USERRA claim brought by a private individual against a state employer.” Although this court has not specifically addressed this issue, our sister circuits have found that the permissive language of USERRA regarding private actions against state employers vests exclusive jurisdiction in state courts. See McIntosh v. Partridge, 540 F.3d 315 (5th Cir.2008) (finding that USERRA does not confer jurisdiction upon federal courts to hear action by private individual against state as employer); Velasquez v. Frapwell, 165 F.3d 593 (7th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Townsend v. University of Alaska, 543 F.3d
holding that in statute authorizing suits against united states limits time period in which such suits may be brought united states retains its sovereign immunity as to any suits brought outside of that time period therefore court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over suit against united states that is barred by statute of limitations holding that eleventh amendment bars federal suits against state courts holding that suits which seek no recovery from state funds but rather allege that recovery is sought under and up to the limits of the states liability insurance coverage fall outside the traditional constitutional bar to suits against the state holding congresss intention to limit userra suits against states to state courts is unmistakable recognizing that there is an outer limit to congresss power under the commerce clause