Justia Military Law Opinion Summaries

Arroyo worked as a Volvo material handler, 2005-2011. Arroyo was a member of the U.S. Army Reserve. She deployed twice to Iraq and Kuwait: 2006-2007 and 2009-2010 and took leave for training and other military activities. She received more than 900 days of military leave from Volvo. There is evidence, including internal emails, suggesting that her supervisors were frustrated from the beginning about her absences. After her 2009-2010 deployment Arroyo declined a voluntary severance package and returned to work. Arroyo was diagnosed with PTSD. Arroyo took three months FMLA and disability leave. Volvo granted accommodations, including: a quiet place to meditate; a mentor; time off for counseling; and breaks and support during anxiety attacks. Other requested accommodations—a more flexible schedule, use of earplugs or headphones in both ears, day-to-day guidance, putting all communications in writing, and disability awareness training—were under review when she was terminated for violation of Volvo’s attendance policy. The district court rejected her claims for discrimination, retaliation, and failure to provide reasonable accommodations in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, 38 U.S.C. 4301, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101, the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 791 , and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. The Seventh Circuit reversed with respect to discrimination claims under USERRA and the ADA, stating that Arroyo raised genuine, material factual issues. View "Arroyo v. Volvo Grp. N. Am., LLC" on Justia Law

The Department of the Navy furloughed Einboden, a civilian employee for six days in 2013 as part of budget cuts made pursuant to sequestration legislation, 2 U.S.C. 901a. Einboden argued that his position was not subject to the cuts because money saved by the furlough could have been transferred from the Navy working capital fund to other activities with appropriate notice to the congressional defense committees. An AJ and the Merit Systems Protection Board upheld the decision, finding that the furlough was a “reasonable management solution to the financial issues facing the agency,” that notice of proposed furlough was not procedurally deficient, and that “although [Einboden’s work group] may have had adequate funding to avoid a furlough . . . , it was reasonable for DOD to consider its budget holistically, rather than isolating the situation of each individual Navy.” The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting Einboden’s contention that the Navy should be required to show actual re-programming of the funds saved by his furlough. View "Einboden v. Dep't of the Navy" on Justia Law

Mother Mari M. appealed a juvenile court order that her son M.M., born June 2013, was a child described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a). The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency received a report of severe domestic violence between mother and Rogers M., minor's father, which had taken place on December 2, 2014 and which had been witnessed by minor. The domestic violence included father choking mother while holding minor; father throwing mother into a piano, a table and onto the floor while minor was "at their feet"; father pinning mother on the floor at least two times; father breaking mother's phone; and mother hitting and kicking father and shredding his shirt among other allegations. The December 2 domestic violence incident came to light two days later when Mother contacted father's naval command and sought a military protective order (MPO). Mother contended the juvenile court erred when it: (1) assumed permanent jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act after officials and a supreme court judge from minor's "home state" of Japan unambiguously and repeatedly stated it was inappropriate under their legal system for a Japanese court to communicate with the juvenile court regarding this case; (2) failed to advise her that she could commence a separate custody action in Japan; and (3) found minor a dependent under subdivision (a) of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, rather than under subdivision (b) of that statute. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "In re M.M." on Justia Law

Boutros worked for Avis Rent A Car as a courtesy bus driver at O’Hare Airport. He had worked for Avis before a short stint in the military. After he was honorably discharged for unsatisfactory performance, Avis did not want to rehire him, but did so. One night in May 2008, Boutros informed his supervisor that the fire extinguisher on his bus inexplicably discharged, spraying fire retardant near the driver’s seat. He reported no injury at the time, but the next morning he claimed that chemicals from the discharge had harmed him. Avis launched an investigation and eventually fired Boutros for dishonesty and insubordination in connection with his shifting accounts of the fire-extinguisher accident. Boutros sued, claiming that Avis fired him because of his race and subjected him to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, and retaliated against him for exercising his rights under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, 38 U.S.C. 4301. A jury rejected his claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the appeal was frivolous and issuing an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules. View "Boutros v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., LLC" on Justia Law

During the Vietnam War, herbicides were applied near the Korean DMZ in 1968-1969. The 2003 Veterans Benefits Act authorized benefits for children with spina bifida born to certain veterans, 38 U.S.C. 1821. In 2004, the VA amended its Manual to provide benefits for “individuals born with spina bifida who are the children of veterans who served with specific units … between September 1, 1967 and August 31, 1971” conceding that certain veterans who served in April 1968 to July 1969 were exposed to herbicides. The final rule, effective February, 2011, was applicable “to all applications for benefits that are received by VA on or after February 24, 2011 and to all applications … pending before VA,” the Veterans Court, or the Federal Circuit on February 24, 2011. McKinney filed a claim in 2010 for service connection based on exposure to Agent Orange during his DMZ service, which began in August 1969. The VA denied his claim. The period of presumed exposure expired one month before McKinney’s service. The VA finalized the 2011 regulation, which extended the presumed exposure period, and granted McKinney’s claim under that regulation, but denied him an effective date earlier than February 2011, so that he received benefits for the post-2011 portion of his claim. The Federal Circuit upheld the VA’s decision to assign the 2011 regulation a prospective effective date. View "McKinney v. McDonald" on Justia Law

In 2000, Herbert, a Navy veteran, sought disability benefits for PTSD, which he alleged was connected to a typhoon that his ship encountered travelling to Japan in 1956. Ship logs and letters confirm that the USS Mount McKinley weathered a bad storm around that time. A 2002 VA medical examination revealed no PTSD; the Regional Office denied the claim. Herbert filed notice of disagreement, but his hearing did not occur until 2008. Herbert underwent a 2004 examination at the VA’s Veterans Center and a 2006 examination by a private psychologist that both produced diagnoses of PTSD. A 2006 VA examination and a 2007 examination conducted at the VA’s behest did not. The Board of Appeal denied service connection finding Herbert not credible in testifying to witnessing others go overboard. The Veterans Court remanded. A VA examiner concluded that experiencing the typhoon itself was an adequate stressor to support a PTSD diagnosis, but that Herbert’s symptoms did not meet diagnostic criteria for PTSD” In 2011, Herbert had another private medical examination, which diagnosed PTSD based on the storm alone. In 2012, the Board rejected Herbert’s claim, finding him “not credible in reporting his psychiatric symptoms or the stressors.” The Veterans Court and Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Herbert v. McDonald" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, veterans' organizations and individuals subject to U.S. military chemical and biological weapons experiments, filed an individual and class action complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the DOD, the Army, the CIA, and the VA. Two of plaintiffs’ claims, brought under section 706(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(1), are at issue in this appeal: first, the Army has unlawfully failed to notify test subjects of new medical and scientific information relating to their health as it becomes available; and second, the Army has unlawfully withheld medical care for diseases or conditions proximately caused by their exposures to chemicals during the experiments. The court held that Chapter 3–2(h) of AR 70-25 imposes a duty on the Army to provide all former test subjects with newly acquired information that may affect their well-being, and that this duty is judicially enforceable under section 706(1); the district court did not abuse its discretion in entering its injunction to enforce that duty; the district court was right to find that Chapter 3–1(k) imposes a duty to provide medical care; but, the district court did not, however, have the power to decline to compel care on the ground that another agency was providing similar care to some former test subjects. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court’s summary judgment for the government on this claim and remanded to the district court. View "Vietnam Veterans of America v. CIA" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Guantanamo Bay detainee, raised two challenges to the constitutionality of the United States Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR). The court held that petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief because this Court can consider his Appointments Clause and Commander-in-Chief Clause challenges on direct appeal, after the military commission renders a final judgment and the convening authority and the CMCR review it. Further, petitioner failed to demonstrate a “clear and indisputable” right to the writ. Therefore, the court denied petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition. View "In re: Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Al-Nashir" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, eight male, "out-of-status" aliens who were arrested on immigration charges and detained following the September 11th attacks, filed a putative class action asserting various claims arising out of the discriminatory and punitive treatment they suffered while confined at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) or the Passaic County Jail (Passaic). The district court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. The court concluded that: (1) the MDC plaintiffs have plausibly alleged a substantive due process claim against the DOJ defendants, against Hasty with regard to both official and unofficial conditions, and against Sherman with regard to official conditions only, and these defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim; (2) the MDC plaintiffs have plausibly alleged an equal protection claim against the DOJ defendants, Hasty, and Sherman, and these defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim; (3) the free exercise claim is dismissed as to all defendants; (4) the MDC plaintiffs have plausibly alleged their Fourth Amendment strip search claim against Hasty and Sherman, and these defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim; (5) the MDC plaintiffs have plausibly alleged the Section 1985(3) conspiracy claim against the DOJ defendants, Hasty, and Sherman, and these defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim; and (6) the MDC plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged any claims against Zenk.  The court affirmed the dismissal of the claims brought by the Passaic plaintiffs. View "Turkmen v. Hasty, et al." on Justia Law

After Abu Wa’el (Jihad) Dhiab, a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, went on a hunger strike, he was forcibly extracted from his cell and force-fed. The district court examined 32 classified videotapes of Dhiab's forcible cell extractions and force-feedings in order to grant Dhiab's motion to enjoin the government from forcibly extracting him from his cell and force-feeding him. At issue is the district court's grant of media organizations' motion to unseal and release the videotapes. The court concluded that, the district court’s decision did not terminate the action, and it does not qualify as an immediately appealable collateral order. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction. Further, this case does not present the extraordinary circumstances required for mandamus relief. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied the request for a writ of mandamus View "Dhiab v. Obama" on Justia Law