Objection to Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims — U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden (Dkt. 308)

Summary

Daniel W. Syzdek, who states that he holds the office of Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy, files an Objection to Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims in U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden, Document 308, filed 07/18/24. The objection says the settlement lacks accountability for Admiral Nowell and Admiral Gilday and cites Benton v BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, where half a million dollars in punitive damages was awarded. It lists five conditions: full compensation for financial loss, automatic reinstatement with the member's right to refuse, compensation for mental, emotional and physical damages, a reprimand for the admirals, and class member input into the required training. The objection is dated 15 July 2024.

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 4 of 4 is not shown because the text could not be recognized reliably.

Case 4:21-cv-01236-O0 Document 308 Filed 07/18/24 Pagei1of4 PagelD 8433

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. Tex.)

To: United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
From: Daniel W. Syzdek

I, Daniel W. Syzdek, serve this objection to the Court, that it may also serve as notice to
all parties involved. I hold the office of Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy and
filed a religious accommodation to the Navy’s COVID-19 shot mandate and am a member of the
Navy class as described in U.S. Navy SEALs v. Biden, 4.22-cv-01236-O (N.D. Tex).

As aclass member, I object to the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of this
Settlement Agreement for the following reasons:

There is no accountability for those who violated the class member’s Constitutionally
protected rights. Admiral Nowell directly violated RFRA by his blanket denial of religious
accommodation requests (RARs). He further denied religious freedom by changing the
BUPERS INSTRUCTION 1730.11A STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE
ACCOMODATION OF RELIGIOUS PRACTICES to deny that a change of situation could
merit a new religious accommodation request. Admiral Gilday also blanketly denied RAR
appeals. No action against them sets a precedence of consequence-free denial of Constitutional
rights.

The Navy has not acknowledged or apologized for its failed COVID-19 response which
denied the Constitutional rights of service members. There has been a complete lack of
understanding of religious freedom by the Department of Defense. Early in the pandemic, the
Navy command responsible for personnel in the United States had to quickly reverse their policy
of not permitting religious services unless those services were on the naval installation. This
underscores the lack of awareness of the Oath our top leaders have. They follow societal
pressures over their Oath and values of their respective branches. A statement asserting the Navy
cares and values our religious liberty on their website is an empty platitude. Any training will be
minimally attended and not taken seriously. The damage done merits far more than a simple
bureaucratic “we will change something and do better next time” where nothing really changes.

The harms from lack of travel and participation in training for career advancement are not
addressed in this settlement. These harms translate into monetary harms along with mental
health issues and medical expenses. There were instances of monetary harm for sailors stuck in
transition between duty stations and were not compensated. Precedence exists in Benton v
BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee in which Ms. Benton was awarded half a million dollars in
punitive damages, whereas this settlement offers no punitive damages for class members.

Nothing in this settlement deters the Navy from acting in a similar manner for religious
matters in the future. Most leaders in the Navy will be unaware of the settlement and not learn
from the mistakes and purposeful misdeeds of those who violated the rights of the class

wsuit addresses one of the most blatant and abundant failure to uphold their
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 308 Filed 07/18/24 Page 2of4 PagelD 8434

Oath to protect the Constitution and this settlement does nothing to address that other than some
empty words and a training which will be largely ignored.

The defendants in this case violated individual rights and therefore any settlement or
judgment must address this to the class members. I do not consent to this settlement and will
object unless the following five conditions are added to the Settlement Agreement.

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

All class members, including those who have left service voluntarily or involuntarily,
must be compensated in full for financial loss.

All class members separated (involuntary, voluntary or requested early retirement)
must be fully offered automatic reinstatement to their previous rank and position with
the member’s right to refuse.

Provide compensation for mental, emotional, and physical damages for all class
members. This situation violated Constitutional rights and class members have been
harmed.

Admiral Gilday, Admiral Nowell, and others named in the lawsuit, must be held
accountable for their part in violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the
First Amendment of the Constitution. They must be given a reprimand and not
permitted to work in federal service as an employee or as a contractor. They violated
their Oath and are unfit for duty to serve this country.

Class members must be invited to develop and provide the training required in this
settlement. For training to be effective for any audience, persons who experienced the
harms are best fit to provide the training. As part of training after promotion to the
rank of Captain, specific training regarding the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and
RFRA and how they all connect to the Oath should be required. This training should
be required again for each promoted person to Admiral, with refresher training
annually for flag officers. Senior officers need to understand they took an Oath to
protect the Constitution.

Signed on this date: 15 July 2024

4
Af

Daniel W. Syzdek


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.txnd.355696.308.0.pdf

Size

787,534 bytes

SHA-256

edfd4b4d55d4a77e658e328c8283581bef1e763c4bb27beeca5a56fdcb01e9bf

Our copy

gov.uscourts.txnd.355696.308.0.pdf

Original

No public link identified.