Dept. of Transportation, 600 F.2d 1070 (5th Cir.1979), affirming 443 F.Supp. 451 (N.D.Fla.1977); Waltermyer v. Aluminum Co. of America, 804 F.2d 821 (3d Cir.1986); Rudisill v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 167 F.2d 175, 178-9 (4th Cir.1948); Fitz v. Board of Educ. of Port Huron Area Schools, 662 F.Supp. 1011, 1014-1015 (E.D.Mich.1985) (citing Peel). In enacting USERRA, Congress intended a uniform set of protections available to returning veterans in the several states and expressly forbade modification of these protections by either state law, benefit plans or contractual bargaining because it would frustrate the statutory purpose. Preemption of state law is intended in precisely those kind of circumstances. See Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 97 S.Ct. 1305, 51 L.Ed.2d 604 (1977) (<HOLDING>); City of Burbank v. Lockheed Terminal, Inc.,
holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding that those state law claims specifically related to labeling and packaging are preempted by fifra holding the state law claims were not preempted holding that subsequent congressional statute regulating registration of aliens retroactively preempted state law holding that a state law imposing different labeling standards for bacon and flour was preempted because it would frustrate the congressional purpose of providing direct comparisons for consumers