Supreme Court Decisions Affect Service Members, Vets

WASHINGTON, March 2, 2011 — The U.S. Supreme Court has issued three deci­sions with mil­i­tary con­nec­tions over the last two days.
In what may be the most con­tentious of the cas­es, the court ruled that mem­bers of a West­boro, Kan., church have the right to pick­et at funer­als for ser­vice mem­bers killed in action.

Yes­ter­day, the court reversed a low­er court deci­sion and decid­ed a reservist had been the vic­tim of bias due to his mil­i­tary ser­vice. Also yes­ter­day, the court ruled that Vet­er­ans Affairs Depart­ment dead­lines for vet­er­ans apply­ing for ben­e­fits do not have “juris­dic­tion­al con­se­quences.”

In the first case, Albert Sny­der, the father of Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Matthew Sny­der, who was killed in Iraq, sued the West­boro Bap­tist Church for pick­et­ing his son’s funer­al. A jury found the West­boro group — which says it con­ducts the protests because God hates the Unit­ed States for its tol­er­ance of homo­sex­u­al­i­ty — liable for inflict­ing emo­tion­al dis­tress on the Sny­der fam­i­ly, intru­sion upon seclu­sion and civ­il con­spir­a­cy.

The Supreme Court vot­ed 8–1 to reverse the low­er court rul­ing, say­ing the Constitution’s First Amend­ment shields the group. The First Amend­ment states, “Con­gress shall make no law respect­ing an estab­lish­ment of reli­gion, or pro­hibit­ing the free exer­cise there­of; or abridg­ing the free­dom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the peo­ple peace­ably to assem­ble, and to peti­tion the Gov­ern­ment for a redress of griev­ances.”

In one of yesterday’s deci­sions, the court ruled in favor of Army reservist Vin­cent Staub, who was fired in 2004 from his civil­ian posi­tion as an angiog­ra­phy tech­ni­cian at Proc­tor Hos­pi­tal in Peo­ria, Ill., because of his mil­i­tary oblig­a­tions.

Staub sued the hos­pi­tal under the Uni­formed Ser­vices Employ­ment and Reem­ploy­ment Rights Act of 1994, which for­bids employ­ers from deny­ing employ­ment, re-employ­ment, reten­tion in employ­ment, pro­mo­tion or any ben­e­fit of employ­ment based on a reservist’s mil­i­tary oblig­a­tions. A jury found the hos­pi­tal liable, but the 7th Cir­cuit Court reversed the deci­sion.

The Supreme Court reversed the rever­sal yes­ter­day, hold­ing that if a super­vi­sor moti­vat­ed by anti­mil­i­tary hos­til­i­ty per­forms an act intend­ed to cause an adverse employ­ment action, the employ­er is liable under the law.

In yesterday’s oth­er deci­sion, the court found that the dead­line set up by the VA Depart­ment for fil­ing sup­ple­men­tal dis­abil­i­ty ben­e­fits does not have juris­dic­tion­al con­se­quence.

The case — brought by David Hen­der­son, who since has died — hinged on Hen­der­son miss­ing a 120-day dead­line by 15 days. The court found for vet­er­ans, say­ing Con­gress regard­ed the dead­line as a claim-pro­cess­ing rule.

Source:
U.S. Depart­ment of Defense
Office of the Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of Defense (Pub­lic Affairs)

More news and arti­cles can be found on Face­book and Twit­ter.

Fol­low GlobalDefence.net on Face­book and/or on Twit­ter

Team GlobDef

Team GlobDef

Seit 2001 ist GlobalDefence.net im Internet unterwegs, um mit eigenen Analysen, interessanten Kooperationen und umfassenden Informationen für einen spannenden Überblick der Weltlage zu sorgen. GlobalDefenc.net war dabei die erste deutschsprachige Internetseite, die mit dem Schwerpunkt Sicherheitspolitik außerhalb von Hochschulen oder Instituten aufgetreten ist.

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →