Motions to Certify Class and for Class-Wide Preliminary Injunction — Air Force Officer v. Austin (M.D. Ga.)

Summary

Motions filed May 3, 2022 (Document 88) by plaintiffs Air Force Officer, Air Force NCO, Air Force Special Agent and Air Force Engineer in Case No. 5:22-cv-00009-TES in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, against Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and Air Force officials. They ask the court to certify a class of Air Force members subject to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate who sought a religious accommodation and received or will receive a final denial, to appoint their counsel as class counsel, and to enjoin the Department of Defense's August 24, 2021 order and the Air Force's September 3, 2021 order. They cite the court's February 15, 2022 order granting Air Force Officer a preliminary injunction, which found the Air Force's process "both illusory and insincere."

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, AIR FORCE NCO,
)
AIR FORCE SPECIAL AGENT, and
)
AIR FORCE ENGINEER, on behalf of
)
themselves and all others similarly situated,
)

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

Plaintiffs,
)
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.
)

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO CERTIFY CLASS, TO APPOINT CLASS COUNSEL,
AND FOR CLASS-WIDE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 and 65, Plaintiffs Air Force Officer, Air
Force NCO, Air Force Special Agent, and Air Force Engineer (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, hereby move (1) to certify a class (the
“Class”), under Rule 23(b)(2), consisting of all members of the United States Air Force who (a)
are subject to a mandate of the Department of Defense or Air Force to receive a COVID-19
vaccine, (b) submitted a request for religious accommodation regarding such mandate based on a
sincerely held religious belief, and (c) have received or will receive a final denial of such request
from the Department of Defense or Air Force; (2) for appointment of Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class
counsel, under Rule 23(g); and (3) for entry of a Class-wide preliminary injunction, under Rule
65, enjoining Defendants from enforcing certain COVID-19 vaccine mandates—specifically,
Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES   Document 88   Filed 05/03/22   Page 1 of 5

2

Department of Defense’s August 24, 2021 Order and Department of Air Force’s September 3,
2021 Order (collectively, the “Mandates”)1—against Air Force NCO, Air Force Special Agent,
Air Force Engineer, or any member of the Class,2 and enjoining Defendants from taking any
adverse action against Air Force NCO, Air Force Special Agent, Air Force Engineer, or any
member of the Class on the basis of this lawsuit or of any Plaintiff’s or Class member’s request
for religious accommodation related to the Mandates.3
1. The Court should certify the Class because the Class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable, there are questions of law or fact common to the Class, Plaintiffs’
claims are typical of the claims of the Class, and Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the
interest of the Class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)-(4). In its February 15, 2022 Order [Doc. 51, p. 25]
granting Air Force Officer’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 2], the Court “easily”
found that “the Air Force’s process to protect religious rights is both illusory and insincere.”
Defendants have therefore acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the Class, so

1 Plaintiff Air Force Officer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, also seeks
relief as to certain federal civilian employee COVID-19 vaccine mandates—specifically,
President Biden’s September 9, 2021 Executive Order 14043, Department of Defense’s October
1, 2021 Order, and Department of Air Force’s October 8, 2021 Order. See Second Amended
Class Action Complaint. However, those mandates are preliminarily enjoined pursuant to
another court’s order, Feds. for Med. Freedom v. Biden, --- F. Supp. 3d. ----, 2022 WL 188329,
at *8 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2022). See February 15 Injunction [Doc. 51], p. 2 n.2. A panel of the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling reversing the injunction order, but the mandate is
not due to issue until the May 31, 2022, so the injunction remains in place. Therefore, the present
motions do not seek relief as to those federal civilian employee mandates. Plaintiff Air Force
Officer reserves the right to pursue such relief in the future if and as appropriate.
2 The Class includes Plaintiffs. The Court has already granted a preliminary injunction in favor
of Plaintiff Air Force Officer individually. [Doc. 51].
3 Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, also seek relief as to
Defendants’ violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. See Second Amended Class Action
Complaint, Count III. The present motions do not seek relief as to this claim. Plaintiffs reserve
the right to pursue such relief in the future if and as appropriate.
Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES   Document 88   Filed 05/03/22   Page 2 of 5

3

that preliminary and final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate
respecting the Class as a whole. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).
2. The Court should appoint Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class counsel because they are
qualified to and will diligently prosecute this action and will fairly and adequately represent the
interests of the Class.
3. The Court should enter a Class-wide injunction because the Class is likely to succeed
on the merits of its Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and First Amendment claims,
just as the Court found Air Force Officer was individually; the thousands of Class members face
irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, just as Air Force Officer did; consistent with the
Court’s initial preliminary injunction, the balance of hardships weighs in the Class’s favor; and a
Class-wide injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.
Plaintiffs further rely on and incorporate the Memorandum in Support of the present
motions filed simultaneously herewith, the declarations in support of these motions and exhibits
thereto filed simultaneously herewith, Air Force Officer’s briefing and the declarations in
support of her original Motion for Preliminary Injunction and exhibits thereto [including Doc. 2,
2-1 to 2-17, 40, 40-1, 40-2, 41, 41-1, and 45], and the Second Amended Class Action Complaint
[Doc. 84].
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court enter an order (1) certifying a Class
consisting of all members of the United States Air Force who (a) are subject to a mandate of the
Department of Defense or Air Force to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, (b) submitted a request for
religious accommodation regarding such mandate based on a sincerely held religious belief, and
(c) have received or will receive a final denial of such request from the Department of Defense
or Air Force; (2) appointing Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class counsel; (3) enjoining Defendants from
Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES   Document 88   Filed 05/03/22   Page 3 of 5

4

enforcing the Mandates against Air Force NCO, Air Force Special Agent, Air Force Engineer, or
any member of the Class, and enjoining Defendants from taking any adverse action against Air
Force NCO, Air Force Special Agent, Air Force Engineer, or any member of the Class on the
basis of this lawsuit or of any Plaintiff’s or Class member’s request for religious accommodation
related to the Mandates; and (4) granting Plaintiffs and the Class such other and further relief as
the Court deems just and proper.

Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES   Document 88   Filed 05/03/22   Page 4 of 5

5

Dated: May 3, 2022

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Adam S. Hochschild

Stephen Crampton, pro hac vice
Michael R. Hirsh, GA #357220
THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Senior Counsel

Hirsh Law Office, LLC
PO Box 4506

2295 Towne Lake Parkway

Tupelo, MS 38803

Suite 116-181
(662)255-9439

Woodstock, GA 30189
scrampton@thomasmoresociety.org

(678)653-9907
michael@hirsh.law
Adam S. Hochschild, pro hac vice
Hochschild Law Firm
THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Special Counsel
PO Box 401
Plainfield, VT 05667
(314)503-0326
adam@hochschildlaw.com

Mary Catherine Hodes, pro hac vice
THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Special Counsel
112 S. Hanley Rd., Second Floor
Clayton, MO 63105
(314)825-5725
mchodes@thomasmoresociety.org

Michael McHale, pro hac vice
THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Counsel
10506 Burt Circle, Ste. 110
Omaha, NE 68114
(402)501-8586
mmchale@thomasmoresociety.org

Paul M. Jonna, pro hac vice
LiMandri & Jonna LLP
THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Special Counsel
P.O. Box 9120
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
(858)759-994
pjonna@limandri.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES   Document 88   Filed 05/03/22   Page 5 of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gamd.123364.88.0.pdf

Size

145,555 bytes

SHA-256

be2f3da4336688b7071f5d3630c191c4b0afc52efedb2de920cd1852e46a3d8d

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gamd.123364.88.0.pdf

Original

archive.org