Justia Military Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed suit against the Secretary of the Department of the Army, alleging age discrimination and retaliation claims. As a threshold matter, the court concluded that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act's (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., federal sector provision applied here, and the court need not decide whether a federal plaintiff must prove but-for-causation or some lesser standard under 29 U.S.C. 633a because plaintiffs' complaint stated a claim for relief under the heightened, but-for standard in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. On the merits, the court concluded that the district court plaintiffs have stated a claim for which relief could be granted under section 633a where plaintiffs were within the protected class under the ADEA, plaintiffs were qualified for the two newly-created positions at issue; plaintiffs were not selected for the positions; a "substantially younger" employee was selected for one of the positions instead; and one of the officials with decision-making authority over the younger employee's selection said that the department needed "new blood." Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' age discrimination claims and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Leal, et al. v. McHugh" on Justia Law

George Neville filed a petition for modification of a final judgment of divorce seeking to have his ex-wife, Tina Blitz, pay their daughter's college expenses. The chancellor ordered the parties to divide the college expenses equally, after scholarships and a monthly housing stipend from the Post-9/11 GI Bill were deducted. George, who had assigned his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to his daughter, appealed arguing the chancellor erred by dividing the monthly housing stipend between Tina and himself. The chancellor found that George should take credit for the payment of the daughter's tuition, fees, and books from the Post-9/11 GI Bill, but not the monthly housing stipend. He ordered that the housing stipend be taken off the top , along with the daughter's scholarships, before the remaining expenses were divided between George and Tina. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the chancellor's allocation of the monthly housing stipend was a violation of 38 U.S.C. 3319(f)(3) because it constituted division of the benefit between parties in a civil proceeding. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case back to the chancellor to modify the order to give George credit for all benefits from the Post-9/11 GI Bill. View "Neville v. Blitz" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was employed by Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, LLC as an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) group leader. In 2008, Plaintiff, member of the U.S. Navy, was called to active duty. During Plaintiff's tour of duty, Pfizer restructured its API department, eliminating the API group leader position and replacing it with two separate classifications, API team leader and API service coordinator. After being discharged from active military service, Plaintiff was appointed to the API service coordinator position. Plaintiff subsequently filed suit against Pfizer, asserting Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act claims and pendant state law claims, alleging, inter alia, that Pfizer violated his rights by failing to provide him with an opportunity to apply for the API team leader position. The district court concluded that because the API team leader was not an automatic promotion, the escalator principle and reasonable certainty test did not apply to Plaintiff's claim. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court's judgment and remanded, holding that the escalator principle and reasonable certainty test apply regardless of whether the promotion at issue is automatic or non-automatic. View "Rivera-Melendez v. Pfizer Pharms., LLC" on Justia Law

Before the invasion of Iraq, KBR entered into contracts with the U.S. Army for the provision of dining facility (DFAC) services in Iraq. The contract at issue was for DFAC services at Camp Anaconda, one of the largest U.S. bases in Iraq. KBR subcontracted with Tamimi to provide services in Anaconda. As troop levels increased, the Defense Contract Auditing Agency (DCAA) engaged in audits of DFAC subcontracts. With respect to Anaconda, the DCAA concluded that KBR had charged $41.1 million in unreasonable costs for services provided from July 2004 to December 2004 and declined to pay KBR that amount. KBR sued and the government brought counterclaims, including a claim under the Anti-Kickback Act. The Court of Federal Claims held that KBR was entitled to $11,460,940.31 in reasonable costs and dismissed the majority of the government’s counterclaims, but awarded $38,000.00 on the AKA claim. The Federal Circuit affirmed the determination of cost reasonableness and dismissal of the government’s Fraud and False Claims Act claims and common-law fraud claim. The court remanded in part, holding that the Claims Court improperly calculated KBR’s base fee and erred in determining that the actions of KBR’s employees should not be imputed to KBR for purposes of the AKA. . View "Kellogg Brown & Root Servs, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1), 2671-80, seeking compensatory damages for loss of property and personal injuries allegedly caused by the negligence and malice of the VA. The court affirmed the district court's grant of the VA's motion to dismiss where the Veterans Judicial Review Act (VJRA), 38 U.S.C. 511, and in the alternative, the United States' sovereign immunity, barred the district court from exercising jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims. View "King v. US Dept. of Veterans Affairs, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., alleging that the VA negligently withheld benefits. Determining that the court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291, the court concluded that resolving plaintiff's claim would require the district court to determine whether the VA acted negligently in the benefits determination. Therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. 511(a) and the district court properly dismissed the case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Jones v. United States" on Justia Law

Middleton served on active duty from 1964 until 1990. He first sought compensation for type II diabetes mellitus in 2001. In 2002, a VA Regional Office granted service connection, assigning a disability rating of 20 percent under 38 C.F.R. 4.119. In 2009 Middleton was denied an increased rating after a VA physical examination. During his appeal, Middleton was treated with three oral hypoglycemic agents and daily injections of the drug Byetta®. In 2010, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals again denied a rating increase despite Middleton’s assertions that his diet was restricted, his activities were regulated, and he used an oral hypoglycemic agent, based on the fact that he did n not use insulin to regulate his diabetes. The Board stated that use of insulin is a necessary element for the 40-percent rating. The Veterans Court affirmed the denial. The Federal Circuit affirmed, stating it lacked jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s application of the regulations to the facts and that the Veterans Court did not err in interpreting the governing regulations View "Middleton v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

The Department of Veterans Affairs promulgated a rule that purported to eliminate certain procedural and appellate rights for veterans appearing before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. The National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates (NOVA) sought review. During the course of review it became clear that the new rule was invalid; the VA made assurances to NOVA and to the Federal Circuit about how the matter would be handled pending resolution. It later became clear that these assurances were not honored by the VA. The Federal Circuit ordered the VA to show cause why it should not be sanctioned. The VA, conceding error, provided a detailed remedial plan. After clarifications, NOVA indicated its satisfaction with, and agreement to, the plan, under which the VA agreed to notify relevant claimants before the Board, to vacate the affected Board decisions, and to provide affected claimants with a new hearing even if relevant deadlines would otherwise have expired. The Federal Circuit approved the plan and did not enter sanctions. View "Nat'l Org. of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

During the Iraq War, the U.S. military established the Radwaniyah Palace Complex as a base of operations. Staff Sergeant Maseth was stationed there and assigned to live in a barracks building that predated the war and was known to have significant electrical problems. In 2008, Staff Sergeant Maseth died by electrocution while taking a shower in the barracks. The shower was electrified by an ungrounded, unbonded water pump. Maseth’s estate and his parents sued KBR, a military contractor hired to perform maintenance services at the barracks. The district court dismissed, holding that the case was nonjusticiable and, alternatively, that the claims were preempted by the federal policy embodied in the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant activities exception, 28 U.S.C. 2680(j). The Third Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the claims are not preempted by the combatant activities exception and reasoning that the political question issue requires a preliminary determination of which state’s law controls. View "Harris v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

Flora is the widow of Donald, a World War II veteran, honorably discharged in 1945 after being diagnosed with diabetes mellitus. At that time the VA found his diabetes to be service-connected and gave him a disability rating of 40%. Beginning in 1950, Donald was hospitalized at various times for complications and declining health as a result of his diabetes and repeatedly, unsuccessfully, requested increases in his disability rating. In 1961, the Director of the Compensation and Pension Service found “clear and unmistakable error” and increased the rating to 60%, effective 1961. Ultimately, Donald’s disability rating was increased to 100%, effective 1965. Donald died in 1969, from complications of diabetes. Flora was granted dependency and indemnity compensation, 38 U.S.C. 1310, and filed a claim under 38 U.S.C. 1311(a)(2), which provides that a surviving spouse may qualify for increased benefits if the veteran received “or was entitled to receive . . . compensation for a service-connected disability that was rated totally disabling for a continuous period of at least eight years immediately preceding death.” The VA denied the claim in 2003. Flora pursued appeals, which were ultimately rejected by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. The Veterans Court and Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Kernea v. Shinseki" on Justia Law