In Re Navy Chaplaincy, Aka ) ) Navy Non-Liturgical Chaplains, ) Plaintiffs, ) ) V
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 1:07-mc-00269-GK Document 134 Filed 10/03/12 Page 1 of 206 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA In re Navy Chaplaincy, aka ) ) Navy Non-liturgical Chaplains, ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 07-mc-269 (GK) THE UNITED STATES NAVY ) Washington, D.C. 20530 ) and ) ) THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY ) Room 4E686 - The Pentagon ) Washington, D.C. 20350-1000 ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) IN RE NAVY CHAPLAINCY CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT This Complaint consolidates, in accord with the District Court’s July 25, 2012, Case Management Order #1, the claims of three previously separate cases filed in the District Court by three groups of Non-liturgical Navy chaplain Plaintiffs at different times, including two chaplain endorsing agencies in their personal and representative capacities. Those now closed cases are: Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. [the named Secretary of the Navy], 99cv1945; Adair v. [the named Secretary of Navy], 00cv566; and Gibson v. U.S. Navy, 06cv1696 (GK). The Court previously consolidated all three cases into In re Navy Chaplaincy, 07mc269 (GK), and ths caption keeps that case identity. To facilitate review and reference to the facts, Counts, claims, and relief because of the Consolidated Complaint’s length, an Index is provided, followed by the listing of the organizational and 65 chaplain plaintiffs and the body of the Complaint. Case 1:07-mc-00269-GK Document 134 Filed 10/03/12 Page 2 of 206 IN RE NAVY CHAPLAINCY INDEX TO THE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT INDEX.......................................................................a Caption listing of Plaintiffs.......................................................1 Caption listing of Defendants.....................................................5 I. INTRODUCTION............................................................6 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE.................................................8 III. PARTIES..................................................................9 A. Plaintiffs.............................................................9 C. The Defendants......................................................1 3 IV. DEFINITIONS............................................................1 4 V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS.............................................1 7 VI. THE NAVY’S RELIGIOUS DEMOGRAPHICS. 2 3 VII. CHAPLAINS AS FAITH GROUP/DENOMINATIONAL REPRESENTATIVES.. 2 5 VIII. OTHER STATUTES AFFECTING THIS LITIGATION. 2 8 IX. THE NAVY’S ILLEGAL POLICIES AND ACTIONS.. 2 8 COUNT 1 NAVY’S FAITH GROUP CATEGORY SYSTEM IS ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY AND CONCEALS NAVY DENOMINATIONAL PREJUDICES IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS ................................................................2 8 COUNT 2 THE NAVY ESTABLISHED AND MAINTAINED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL RELIGIOUS HIERARCHY AND PREFERENCE SYSTEM THROUGH ITS DENOMINATIONAL AND/OR FAITH GROUP CLUSTER GOALS AND/OR QUOTAS........................................................3 2 A. Religious Favoritism and Preferences in Chaplain Accessions.. 3 3 a Case 1:07-mc-00269-GK Document 134 Filed 10/03/12 Page 3 of 206 B. Religious Preferences and Favoritism in Chaplain Recalls to Active Duty3.5 C. Religious Preferences and Favoritism in Chaplain Continuation on Active Duty......................................................3 6 E. Religious Preferences and Favoritism in Chaplain Retention. 3 9 F. Religious Preferences and Favoritism in Chaplain Positions of Power.. 4 0 COUNT 3 THE NAVY ESTABLISHED AND MAINTAINED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL CHAPLAIN ACCESSION SYSTEM UNRELATED TO MEETING THE DEPARTMENT OF NAVY’S FREE EXERCISE NEEDS. 4 3 COUNT 4 THE NAVY’S PAST AND PRESENT CHAPLAIN SELECTION BOARD SYSTEMS VIOLATE THE FIRST AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS AND RFRA4.5 A. Common Characteristics of the Navy’s Unconstitutional Selection Board Procedures.................................................4 5 B. The Navy’s CARE Board System and Its Procedures are Unconstitutional.............................................4 6 D. Evidence of Religious Discrimination In Chaplain Promotions .. 5 5 E. The Navy’s Chaplain Active Duty Retention Advisory Group (CADRAG) or Similar Systems Is Unconstitutional. 5 7 COUNT 5 THE NAVY’S CHAPLAIN RECALL SYSTEM VIOLATES ITS OWN REGULATIONS, IS DISCRIMINATORY, PREFERENTIAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL............................................6 0 COUNT 6 ALLOWING CHAPLAINS TO RATE OTHER CHAPLAINS, EXCEPT IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, VIOLATES THE FIRST AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS [DISMISSED]......................................6 1 COUNT 7 THE NAVY HAS CREATED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL CULTURE IN ITS CHAPLAIN CORPS CHARACTERIZED BY PERSISTENT AND OVERT HOSTILITY TO NON-LITURGICAL CHAPLAINS AND NAVY MEMBERS AND FAVORITISM TO LITURGICAL DENOMINATIONS ................................................................6 4 COUNT 8 THE NAVY’S HOSTILITY TO NON-LITURGICAL DENOMINATIONS AND b Case 1:07-mc-00269-GK Document 134 Filed 10/03/12 Page 4 of 206 THEIR TRADITIONS HAS BURDENED PLAINTIFFS IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS AND RFRA. 6 8 COUNT 9..............................................................7 2 THE NAVY DISCRIMINATES AGAINST NON-LITURGICAL CHAPLAINS’ RELIGIOUS FREE SPEECH........................................7 2 COUNT 10 THE NAVY’S HISTORIC POLICY OF PROMOTING ONLY A “GENERAL PROTESTANT” TYPE OF SERVICE AND RESTRICTING OTHER FORMS OF NON-LITURGICAL RELIGIOUS SERVICES VIOLATES THE FIRST AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS AND RFRA.................................7 4 COUNT 11.............................................................7 6 CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE OF CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS. 7 6 COUNT 12 ILLEGAL RETALIATION..........................................7 6 COUNT 13 FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF AND/OR ILLEGALLY COVERING UP THE EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFFS’ CAUSES OF ACTION. 9 5 COUNT 14............................................................101 VIOLATION OF THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT. 101 COUNT 15 A FORMER CHAPLAIN CORPS RECRUITING POLICY REQUIRING ALL CHAPLAINS TO ASSIST IN RECRUITING CHAPLAINS VIOLATED THE FIRST AMENDMENT............................................101 COUNT 16 10 U.S.C. § 613(a) IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO PLAINTIFFS’ CONSTITUTIONAL AND RFRA CLAIMS. 104 COUNT 17 [DISMISSED] FUNDING OF THE CHC’S ILLEGAL POLICIES, PRACTICES AND ACTIONS EXCEEDS CONGRESS’ AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE I, SECTION 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION’S TAXING AND SPENDING CLAU1S0E5. COUNT 18 ENDORSING AGENCY SEPARATE CLAIMS. 107 X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF.....................................................108 c Case 1:07-mc-00269-GK Document 134 Filed 10/03/12 Page 5 of 206 A. Declaratory Relief. ...............................................108 B. Injunctive Relief..................................................108 C. Specific Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. .. 109 D. Attorneys’ Fees and Other Relief....................................120 Exhibit List..................................................................122 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE..................................................124 ADDENDUM A: Individual Chaplains Plaintiff’s Names Alphabetically, Addresses and Claims ADDENDUM B – PLAINTIFF LIST BY CASE d Case 1:07-mc-00269-GK Document 134 Filed 10/03/12 Page 6 of 206 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA In re Navy Chaplaincy, aka ) ) Navy Non-liturgical Chaplains,1 aka ) Case No. 07-mc-269 (GK) ) The Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches, ) ) and ) ) The Associated Gospel Churches ) ) and ) ) Robert H. Adair (Adair) ) and ) ) Rich L. Arnold (Gibson) ) and ) ) Ray Allen Bailey (Gibson) ) and ) ) Michael Belt, (Adair) ) and ) ) William C. Blair (Adair) ) and ) ) Rick P. Bradley (Gibson) ) and ) ) George Philip Byrum,(Gibson) ) and ) ) Andrew Calhoun (Gibson) ) and ) ) Martha Carson (CFGC) ) and ) ) 1 The 65 individual chaplain plaintiffs in the three previously separate cases are identified herein with their original case. 1 Case 1:07-mc-00269-GK Document 134 Filed 10/03/12 Page 7 of 206 Greg DeMarco (Adair) ) and ) ) Tim Demy (Gibson) ) and ) ) Patrick T. Doney (Gibson) ) and ) ) Joseph Dufour (Gibson) ) and ) ) Floyd C. Ellison (Gibson) ) and ) ) Larry Farrell (Adair) ) and ) ) Alan Garner(Gibson) ) and ) ) Dave Gibson (Gibson) ) and ) ) John Gordy, (Gibson) ) and ) ) Richard F. Hamme (Adair) ) and ) ) Furniss Harkness (Adair) ) and ) ) William Hatch (Gibson) ) and ) ) Gary Heinke (Gibson) ) and ) ) Robert L. Hendricks (Gibson) ) and ) ) Frank Johnson (Gibson) ) and ) ) 2 Case 1:07-mc-00269-GK Document 134 Filed 10/03/12 Page 8 of 206 Mark R. Johnston,(CFGC) ) and ) ) Laurence W. Jones (Gibson) ) and ) ) Samuel D. Kirk (Gibson) ) and ) ) Klon Kitchen (CFGC) ) and ) ) Frank S. Klapach (Gibson) ) and ) ) Tom Klappert (Gibson) ) and ) ) Jan C. Kohlmann (Gibson) ) and ) ) Allen L. Lancaster (Gibson) ) and ) ) Michael Lavelle (Adair) ) and ) ) George W. Linzey (Adair) ) and ) ) James Looby (Gibson) ) and ) ) Manuel Mak (Gibson) ) and ) ) Walker, Jr. Marsh (Gibson) ) and ) ) Denise Y. Merritt (CFGC) ) and ) ) David Mitchell (Gibson) ) and ) ) 3 Case 1:07-mc-00269-GK Document 134 Filed 10/03/12 Page 9 of 206 Jairo Moreno (Gibson) ) and ) ) Timothy D. Nall, (Adair) ) and ) ) Dan Nichols (Gibson) ) and ) ) Rene` Porter-Stewart (Gibson) ) and ) ) James V. Prince (Gibson) ) and ) ) Duane Purser (CFGC) ) and ) ) Rafael J. Quiles (Adair) ) and ) ) Javier Roman (Gibson) ) and ) ) Daniel E. Roysden (CFGC) ) and ) ) Thomas Rush (Adair) ) and ) ) Lloyd Scott (Gibson) ) and ) ) Mary Helen Spalding (CFGC) ) and ) ) Gary Stewart (Gibson) ) and )