Justia Military Law Opinion Summaries

The plaintiffs, who are military members, filed a class action against Citibank, alleging violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) and other statutes. They claimed Citibank improperly charged them higher interest rates and fees on their credit card balances after they left active duty, contrary to the SCRA's protections. The credit card agreements included arbitration clauses that required disputes to be resolved individually, not as class actions.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina denied Citibank's motion to compel arbitration, holding that the SCRA allowed servicemembers to bring class actions in federal court despite any prior agreement to arbitrate. The court interpreted the SCRA's provision allowing class actions "notwithstanding any previous agreement to the contrary" as overriding the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit held that the SCRA does not explicitly prohibit arbitration agreements and that the FAA requires enforcement of such agreements unless there is a clear congressional command to the contrary. The court found that the SCRA's language did not provide such a command and that the arbitration agreements should be enforced according to their terms, which included individual arbitration.The Fourth Circuit remanded the case with instructions to compel arbitration for all claims except those under the Military Lending Act (MLA). The court noted that the MLA explicitly prohibits arbitration agreements for disputes involving the extension of consumer credit to servicemembers. The district court was instructed to determine whether the MLA applied to the plaintiffs' credit card accounts and to address any related issues. View "Espin v. Citibank, N.A." on Justia Law

The Commission alleged that the Army violated the Randolph-Sheppard Act by failing to give priority to blind vendors in the bidding process for a vending facility services contract at an Army base cafeteria. After the arbitration panel found in favor of the Army, the Commission appealed the panel's decision.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Commission. The court held that the statutory language is ambiguous; applied the presumption against ineffectiveness; supported a broader interpretation of "operate" in the context in which it is used within the Act; and held that the district court did not err in holding that the Act may apply to Dining Facility Attendant (DFA) contracts generally. In this case, the DFA contract at issue is subject to the Act and the Army violated the Act by not giving the Commission priority in the bidding process. View "Texas Workforce Commission v. United States Department of Education" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, alleging violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. 4301-4334. Plaintiff claimed that he was fired from his job after providing notice of his deployment to Afghanistan in the United States Navy Reserve. The court joined its sister circuits and held that the plain text of USERRA does not preclude the compelled arbitration of disputes arising under its provisions. Furthermore, plaintiff has failed to establish that the legislative history evinces Congress’s intent to prevent the enforcement of the arbitration agreement he signed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order compelling arbitration and dismissing the complaint. View "Ziober v. BLB Resources" on Justia Law

After Cooks terminated him, plaintiff filed suit against the company, alleging claims under the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. 4301, 4302(b), and Alabama state law. The district court entered an order striking from the arbitration agreement two terms that violated USERRA, dismissing the suit without prejudice, and ordering plaintiff to submit his claims to arbitration. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the district court erred by failing to apply the plain language of USERRA’s non-waiver provision. The court concluded that the contract's arguable delegation clause - which would require that the arbitrator, rather than the court, determine whether the arbitration agreement is enforceable - does not control this appeal. The court also concluded that, in reaching whether the arbitration agreement is enforceable, section 4302(b) is not in conflict with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1, 2, and the district court properly determined the arbitration agreement is enforceable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's decision to compel arbitration. View "Bodine v. Cook's Pest Control" on Justia Law