Full text
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
U.S. NAVY SEALs 1-26, et al.,
§
§
Plaintiffs,
§
§
v.
§
Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-01236-O
§
LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, et al.,
§
§
§
Defendants.
§
ORDER
Before the Court are three Motions for Release from Class Action (ECF Nos. 162,
163, 180), filed May 27, May 31, and June 10, 2022. The three movants, purported Navy
Class members, seek to voluntarily separate from the Navy for personal reasons. The Court
ordered both Plaintiffs and Defendants to respond to movants’ claims. ECF No. 164. They
did so on June 8, 2022. See ECF No. 175, 177.
The Court’s order certifying the class and granting class-wide injunctive relief contains the
following language:
Defendant[s] claim that some potential class members may prefer to litigate
independently or avoid legal action altogether, “preferring to comply with a lawful
order after their administrative claim is decided and maintain their military service
without litigation, or . . . choose to leave the service or retire.” Defs.’ Class Cert.
Resp. 22, ECF No. 120. If—and indeed, if—such servicemembers exist, they may
choose to get vaccinated, withdraw their religious accommodation requests,
voluntarily separate, or proceed with retirement plans. The potential class members,
then, are those who seek to remain in the Navy and refuse to compromise their
religious beliefs (i.e., continue to forgo the vaccine).
Order 15, ECF No. 140.
Plaintiffs argue the order expressly permits movants to voluntarily separate from the Navy.
Pls.’ Resp. 1, ECF No. 177. In the event the Court resolves the matter without hearing, Plaintiffs
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 182 Filed 06/13/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 5436
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 182 Filed 06/13/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 5436
2
have requested an order “requiring Defendants’ compliance with the preliminary injunction by . . .
allowing class members to choose to separate from the Navy (whether by “Involuntary
Separation,” “Voluntary Separation,” or requirement per the Navy’s terms)” among other
unrelated requests. Id. at 8. Defendants largely agree—they argue “the Court should find that [the
movants] are no longer members of the class so that their administrative separation may proceed.”
Defs.’ Resp. 1, ECF No. 175. Defendants “expect to promulgate new guidance” allowing
separation for those who withdraw their religious accommodation requests (and, by definition, are
no longer class members). Id.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motions (ECF Nos. 162, 163, 180) because
the three movants no longer fit within the class definition. Though at least two of the
servicemembers are not currently eligible for voluntary separation due to outstanding service
obligations, Defs.’ Resp. 6, ECF No. 175, they may pursue involuntary administrative separation
under honorable conditions. See NAVADMIN 256/21, part 2.a. Future servicemembers like
movants may pursue separation without permission from the Court, because under the existing
class certification language, those who “choose to get vaccinated, withdraw their religious
accommodation requests, voluntarily separate, or proceed with retirement plans” are no longer
class members. Order 15, ECF No. 140.
Having resolved the Motions, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ request for hearing should be
and is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED on this 13th day of June, 2022.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 182 Filed 06/13/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 5437
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 182 Filed 06/13/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 5437
_____________________________________
Reed O’Connor
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE