In Re: Navy Chaplaincy
306 F.R.D. 33
D.D.C.2014Background
- Sixty-five current and former non‑liturgical Protestant Navy chaplains, their endorsing agencies, and an evangelical fellowship sued the Navy alleging denominational favoritism, religious discrimination, and violations of the Free Exercise and Due Process clauses and RFRA; they seek broad declaratory and injunctive relief and individualized remedies.
- Plaintiffs challenge multiple practices: alleged historical accession "Thirds Policy," small selection boards with two chaplains (one a senior CHC officer), secret voting, faith‑group identifiers on records, and alleged informal local denominational favoritism.
- The Chaplain Corps is decentralized across ~500 commands; Navy regulations state selection board membership is to be nominated without regard to religion and require neutrality and nondiscrimination.
- Plaintiffs rely on anecdotal affidavits and statistical analyses by Dr. Leuba asserting disparities; Defendants counter with policies, safeguards, and statistics showing non‑liturgicals now predominate in accessions.
- Prior interlocutory rulings and appeals (including D.C. Circuit decisions) constrained the viable facial challenges; the Court previously dismissed or limited several theory types.
- Court disposition: denied Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification and dismissed the claim relating to the historical "Thirds Policy" for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction (mootness/standing/redressability issues).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over challenge to alleged Thirds Policy | The Thirds Policy caused underrepresentation and past/current injury (increased workload) and thus is justiciable | The policy was abandoned in 2001; any challenge is moot and Plaintiffs cannot obtain redress for past harms; lack of standing for ongoing relief | Dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction; claim is moot and Plaintiffs cannot show redressable ongoing injury |
| Class certification: overall suitability under Rule 23(a)/(b) | A pervasive "culture" and common policies/practices produced class‑wide religious discrimination enabling class treatment | The claims are individualized, driven by decentralized local decisions and discretionary boards; Navy policies prohibit denomination‑based decisions; statistics do not show intentional bias | Motion for class certification denied; Plaintiffs failed to meet Rule 23(a) commonality, typicality, and adequacy and Rule 23(b) requirements |
| Commonality (Rule 23(a)(2)) | Anecdotes, policies, and statistical disparities show common questions and a systemic pattern of denominational favoritism | Anecdotes are localized; challenged policies are facially neutral; statistics are neither stark nor controlled for confounders and do not show intentional discrimination | No common question that will generate classwide answers; Wal‑Mart standard unmet; commonality not satisfied |
| Typicality (Rule 23(a)(3)) | Representatives’ claims arise from same systemic course of conduct affecting class | Plaintiffs’ experiences and legal theories vary widely across time, commands, and factual contexts | Typicality not met; representative claims are not sufficiently similar to absent members’ claims |
| Adequacy of representation (Rule 23(a)(4)) | Named plaintiffs and counsel will adequately pursue class remedies, including institutional reform | Named plaintiffs previously abandoned certification, delayed litigation, and seek institutional remedies that may conflict with individual monetary claims; internal class divisions ("liberal" vs "conservative" non‑liturgicals) risk conflicts | Adequacy lacking; potential conflicts of interest and litigation conduct undermine fitness to represent class |
| Rule 23(b) (1)/(2)/(3) maintainability | Broad injunctive and declaratory relief would address systemic defects and benefit all class members | Relief sought would produce individualized remediation processes, risk precluding individual remedies, and there is low risk of incompatible standards if suits proceed individually | Plaintiffs failed to show maintainability under any 23(b) subsection; individualized adjudication required |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (Rule 23 commonality requires a common contention capable of classwide resolution)
- In re Navy Chaplaincy, 738 F.3d 425 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (affirming that challenged neutral policies plus statistics did not show likelihood of intentional religious discrimination or endorsement)
- In re England, 375 F.3d 1169 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (describing the dual role and qualifications of military chaplains)
- Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (earlier appellate treatment of Navy chaplaincy claims)
- Larsen v. U.S. Navy, 525 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (mootness analysis for prior Thirds Policy challenge)
- D.L. v. Dist. of Columbia, 713 F.3d 120 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (even a single common question may suffice but plaintiffs must meet Wal‑Mart rigor)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing and redressability requirements must be satisfied)
- Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (2013) (Rule 23 requires an affirmative demonstration that certification prerequisites are satisfied)