In Re: Navy Chaplaincy
928 F. Supp. 2d 26
D.D.C.2013Background
- Navy Chaplain Corps is divided into four faith groups: Catholic, liturgical Protestant, non-liturgical Protestant, and Special Worship.
- Plaintiffs are non-liturgical Protestant chaplains and endorsing agencies alleging religious discrimination in personnel decisions.
- Chaplains are promoted via seven-member selection boards; alleged secrecy and 'zeroing' practices affect outcomes.
- Plaintiffs contend denominational bias favors Catholic/liturgical chaplains and disfavors non-liturgical chaplains.
- Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to halt specific board practices and reconsider the process pending merits review.
- Court on remand from the Court of Appeals denied the motion for preliminary injunction as a matter of law and record support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must plaintiffs show intentional discrimination to prove denominational preference | Plaintiffs contend intent is shown by patterns and statistics | Defendants require proof of discriminatory purpose | No; plaintiffs failed to prove discriminatory intent on record |
| Does law of the case relieve plaintiffs of proving intent | Adair II suggested a less onerous burden, not no intent | Law of the case governs only prior rulings | Law of the case does not relieve burden to show intent |
| Are plaintiffs likely to succeed on merits of denominational preference theory | Statistical analyses show denominational favoritism | Statistical evidence insufficient to show intentional discrimination | Plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on the merits due to lack of proven intent |
| Do four injunction factors favor granting relief | Irreparable harm exists; balance and public interest weigh in favor | Injunctive relief would harm military interests and public policy | Factors do not support a preliminary injunction; relief denied |
| Should the court grant injunctive relief given the remand record | Remand resolves issues in plaintiffs’ favor | Record does not show entitlement to extraordinary relief | Denied; injunction not warranted on remand record |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard; discriminatory intent required in constitutional claims)
- Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (U.S. 1979) (discriminatory purpose required for constitutional claims with impact)
- Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1977) (need for discriminatory intent, not just disparate impact)
- Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (U.S. 1960) (illustrative of stark, purposeful discrimination patterns)
- Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (U.S. 1886) (historic example of discriminatory administration despite neutral rules)
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (injunction standard and public-interest considerations)
- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary injunction as extraordinary remedy; heightened showing required)