Objection to Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims — U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden (Dkt. 290)

Summary

Blake Martin, SOC USN, submits an Objection to Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims, filed 07/15/24 as Document 290 in U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden, Case 4:21-cv-01236-O, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Writing as a class member, the objector says the settlement is not fair, reasonable or adequate and that the Navy is directed to take only symbolic remedial actions. The objection states that the objector does not consent unless six conditions are added. The conditions listed call for automatic full backpay for class members involuntarily separated for refusing the COVID-19 shots, and automatic offers of reinstatement to previous ranks and positions.

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

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors. Page 2 of 2 is not shown because the text could not be recognized reliably.

Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 290 Filed 07/15/24 Pagei1of2 PagelD 8185

OBJECTION TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS In

U.S. Navy. SEALS 1-26 v. Biden, 4:22-cv-01236-O (N.D. Fex.)...

To: United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas __ FILED
From: Blake Martin, SOC USN [i , 15) vs

As a class member, I object to the fairness, reasonableness, and ade or this NG ICT CG CRP)
Settlement Agreement for the following reasons: L a

The repair of harms is not adequate because it only forces the Navy to correct limited
administrative records which fails to restore the harms that fall outside this limited definition or
the harms done to those class members no longer in the service.

The settlement does not adequately compensate class attorneys, who were forced to
litigate with an incredibly limited budget against the significant resources of the federal
government who weaponized citizens’ (including class members’) tax dollars against them.

The Settlement does not compensate class members in any way whatsoever, despite many
class members enduring significant financial, mental health, and medical expenses as a result of
defendants actions.

Finally, the Settlement does not deter the Navy from engaging in similar unlawful
practices in the future because 1) the remedial actions the Navy is directed to take are completely
symbolic and 2) the Settlement Agreement does not hold accountable those Navy leaders who
are most responsible for violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First
Amendment of the Constitution.

The defendants actions in violating the rights of class members had an individualized
impact and therefore must be remedied by individualized relief and compensation. I do not
consent to this settlement and will object unless the following six conditions are added to the
Settlement Agreement.

1) Full backpay must be provided automatically (i.e. without their having to request it),
for all class members who were involuntarily separated from the Navy for refusing
the COVID-19 shots after filing a religious accommodation.

2) All service members who were involuntarily separated, left the Navy voluntarily, or
retired before statutory retirement age, after filing a religious accommodation, must
be automatically (i.e. without their having to request it), offered full reinstatement to
their previous ranks and positions with both the pay and seniority they would
otherwise have been entitled to had they remained in the Navy.


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.txnd.355696.290.0.pdf

Size

114,287 bytes

SHA-256

cfa83ad9e346431c593a654a3fdaaaad12b63846d5c7409e6b691c9cca617fa5

Our copy

gov.uscourts.txnd.355696.290.0.pdf

Original

No public link identified.