Declaration of Mary Catherine Hodes in Support of Motion for Class Certification (M.D. Ga.)

Summary

A declaration of Mary Catherine Hodes in support of the plaintiff's motion for class certification, filed February 28, 2022 as Document 57-4 in Air Force Officer v. Lloyd J. Austin, III, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00009-TES, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division. Hodes, one of the plaintiff's attorneys, states that she is licensed in Missouri and Illinois (inactive) and is Special Counsel for the Thomas More Society, a not-for-profit public interest law firm that provides pro bono representation in civil rights and constitutional cases. She describes the Society's experience with RFRA and First Amendment challenges, and states that counsel will vigorously prosecute the case for the plaintiff and the proposed class and have the resources to do so.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION

AIR FORCE OFFICER, on behalf of herself
)
and all others similarly situated,
)

)
Case No. 5:22-cv-00009-TES

Plaintiff,
)
v.

)

)
LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, in his
)
official capacity as Secretary of Defense;
)
FRANK KENDALL, III, in his
)
official capacity as Secretary of the Air Force; and  )
ROBERT I. MILLER, in his
)
official capacity as Surgeon General of the
)
Air Force,

)

)

Defendants.
)

DECLARATION OF MARY CATHERINE HODES
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

I, Mary Catherine Hodes, declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746
that the following is true and correct:
1.
I am over the age of eighteen and am competent to make this declaration.
2.
I am submitting this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class
Certification.
3.
I am one of Plaintiff’s attorneys in this case.
4.
I am a lawyer licensed to practice in the State of Missouri, the State of Illinois
(inactive), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, and the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES   Document 57-4   Filed 02/28/22   Page 1 of 3

2

5.
I am Special Counsel for the Thomas More Society, a not-for-profit, national
public interest law firm dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, and religious liberty.
The Thomas More Society provides pro bono legal representation to plaintiffs and defendants
involved in complex civil rights and constitutional litigation nationwide.
6.
The Thomas More Society and its attorneys have a substantial record of raising
and diligently pursuing RFRA and First Amendment challenges to incursions on religious
freedom.
7.
For example, I and fellow Thomas More Society attorneys are awaiting
determinations in the Eastern District of New York and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals as
to our clients’ RFRA and First Amendment challenges to New York State and New York City’s
“Boss Bills,” which prohibit pro-life employers from refusing to hire someone who has had an
abortion.  Slattery v. Cuomo, No. 21-911 (2d. Cir.); Slattery v. City of New York, 1:20-cv-00580-
PKC-RLM (E.D.N.Y.).
8.
Prior to joining the Thomas More Society in 2018, I litigated constitutional and
civil rights cases with D. John Sauer, now Solicitor General of the State of Missouri, first at
Clark & Sauer, LLC, and then at James Otis Law Group, LLC.
9.
From approximately 2008 to 2012, I practiced law at Schlichter, Bogard &
Denton, in the appellate section of their ERISA fiduciary class action practice. The team I
worked with brought novel, large-scale class actions against employers for breach of fiduciary
duties within their 401(k) plans. Two of the cases I worked on, Spano v. Boeing and Abbott v.
Lockheed Martin, were litigated for 9 years and ultimately resulted in $57 million and $62
Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES   Document 57-4   Filed 02/28/22   Page 2 of 3

3

million settlements, respectively, for employees. Courts have credited Schlichter’s ERISA class
action team for reforming the entire 401(k) industry through their numerous successful class
actions challenging financial abuse: “The law firm Schlichter, Bogard & Denton has
significantly improved 401(k) plans across the country by bringing cases such as this one[.]”
Spano v. Boeing Co., No. 06-743, 2016 WL 3791123, at *3 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2016).
10.
The Thomas More Society is an entire law firm of specialists in the laws
applicable in this case, including RFRA and the First Amendment.  Our team has expended
considerable effort already in connection with the preliminary injunction [Doc. 51] and
formulating and presenting the legal issues before the Court in the First Amended Class Action
Complaint.  We are fully prepared to prosecute this matter on behalf of the Plaintiff and the
proposed class.
11.
I understand the nature and magnitude of the expenses involved in litigating class
action lawsuits and, as attorneys associated with Thomas More Society, counsel have sufficient
resources to vigorously prosecute this action.
Dated this 28th day of February 2022.

/s/ Mary Catherine Hodes

Mary Catherine Hodes
Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES   Document 57-4   Filed 02/28/22   Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gamd.123364.57.4.pdf

Size

542,358 bytes

SHA-256

0d83d67e361861057717a90daa9991ef7722758324057c67062f7bc1718efe08

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gamd.123364.57.4.pdf

Original

archive.org