Fileccia v. Caddo Parish School Board, 5:15-cv-02333

Background

Logan Fileccia, a retired Army major, was hired in 2014 by Caddo Parish School Board (CPSB) as a JROTC instructor at Fair Park High School; JROTC instructors must be certified by the Army Cadet Command.
Col. Eric Sweeney (JROTC Director) and Sgt. Adron Hester (JROTC instructor) raised concerns about Fileccia’s fitness/supervision; Cadet Command subsequently decertified Fileccia in March 2015.
CPSB terminated Fileccia because school districts may employ only certified JROTC instructors; termination followed decertification as a matter of policy.
Fileccia sued in state court (removed to federal court) alleging invasion of privacy, defamation, Rehabilitation Act and Louisiana employment-discrimination claims, § 1983 due-process claims, malicious prosecution, and breach of contract, seeking reinstatement, back pay, and damages.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the claims are nonjusticiable under the Feres (intramilitary immunity) doctrine because adjudication would require second-guessing military personnel decisions and the Cadet Command process.
The district court granted summary judgment, dismissing all claims with prejudice as barred by the Feres doctrine.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claims arising from JROTC decertification/termination are justiciable or barred by Feres	Fileccia: Feres does not apply because actors (himself, Sweeney, Hester) were retired, not active duty	Defendants: JROTC relationship and decertification are military in nature; judicial review would intrude on military decisionmaking	Held: Barred by Feres—decertification/termination are "incident to military service," nonjusticiable
Whether federal and state statutory and constitutional claims (Rehabilitation Act, La. law, §1983 due process) can proceed	Fileccia: Statutory and constitutional claims are cognizable against CPSB/individuals	Defendants: Even these claims would require second-guessing Army/Cadet Command personnel decisions	Held: All such claims barred as they would impermissibly intrude into military affairs
Whether state tort claims (invasion of privacy, defamation, malicious prosecution) are barred	Fileccia: Tort claims arise from wrongful reports and improper personnel disclosures	Defendants: State-law review would equally intrude on military hierarchy and processes	Held: State-law claims also barred under Feres as judicial review would interfere with military structure
Scope of inquiry required (would court need to probe military chain-of-command/process?)	Fileccia: Defendants violated Cadet Command regulations and mishandled process	Defendants: Resolution requires detailed examination of decertification chain and Army procedures	Held: Yes; resolving merits would require second-guessing military personnel decisions, which Feres forbids

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment, inferences and burden)
Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (nonmovant burden to designate specific facts)
Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (establishing intramilitary-immunity/Feres doctrine)
Walch v. Adjutant General's Dep't of Texas, 533 F.3d 289 (Fifth Circuit application of Feres to military-adjacent employment)
United States v. Johnson, 481 U.S. 681 (defining "incident to military service")
Norris v. Lehman, 845 F.2d 283 (Eleventh Circuit: ROTC instructors barred by Feres)
Brown v. United States, 227 F.3d 295 (Fifth Circuit: civilian technician's employment claims barred)
Filer v. Donley, 690 F.3d 643 (military environment controlling for Feres applicability)
United States v. Shearer, 473 U.S. 52 (location less important than second-guessing military decisions)
Lovely v. United States, 570 F.3d 778 (Feres barred ROTC-related intentional tort claim)
Bowen v. Oistead, 125 F.3d 800 (Feres applies even if plaintiff not on active duty)
Wake v. United States, 89 F.3d 53 (Feres barred student-ROTC claims)