law or ordinance), contract, agreement, policy, plan, practice, or other matter that reduces, limits, or eliminates in any manner any right or benefit provided by this chapter, including the establishment of additional prerequisites to the exercise of any such right or the receipt of any such benefit. 38 U.S.C. § 4302(b). The language of Section 4302 broadens the protections available under the predecessor statutes and case precedents. Pri- or to enactment of USERRA, federal courts interpreted the predecessor statutes as preempting any state law and collective bargaining agreements which would lessen the protections available under the statutes. See Jennings v. Illinois Office of Education, 589 F.2d 935, 944 (7th Cir.1979); Peel v. Florid U.S. 624, 93 S.Ct. 1854, 36 L.Ed.2d 547 (1973) (<HOLDING>). Congressional intent is the “touchstone” for
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 holding state statute imposing airport curfew preempted because it inhibited congress purpose in fostering flexible air traffic flow holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding faa reverse preempted by state statute under mccarranferguson holding the state law claims were not preempted