LTJG RICHARD DIRK SELLAND, Plaintiff, v
LTJG RICHARD DIRK SELLAND, Plaintiff, v.
LES ASPIN, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 93-1924-LFO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
832 F. Supp. 12; 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
13618; 63 Fair Empl.
Prac. Cas. (BNA) 16; 64 Empl. Prac. Dec.
(CCH) P42,986
September 28, 1993, Filed
SUBSEQUENT
HISTORY: As Amended September 29, 1993.
CORE
TERMS: homosexual, military, homosexuality, active duty, mission, sexual
orientation, injunction, suspended, taunts, interferes, imminent, honorable
discharge, commanding officer, irreparable injury, public interest,
recommended, discharged, allowances, discharging, misconduct, retention,
armed, preliminary injunction, sexual conduct, final judgment, armed forces,
status quo, cabinet-level, automatically, presidential
COUNSEL:
For Plaintiff: Antonia B. Ianniello, Esq., Hank Hockeimer, Esq., Steptoe
& Johnson, 1300 Conn. Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
For
Defendants: Vincent M. Garvey, Esq., Michael J. Haungs, Esq., Dept. of
Justice, Civil Div., Washington, D.C. 20530
Of
Counsel: Lt. Cdr. Mark D. Lawton, Dept. of the Navy, Office of the JAG
JUDGES:
[**1] Oberdorfer
OPINIONBY:
LOUIS F. OBERDORFER
SNIPPETS:
LTJG RICHARD DIRK SELLAND, Plaintiff, v. LES ASPIN, et al.,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
homosexual, military, homosexuality, active duty, mission, sexual orientation, injunction,
Defendants: Vincent M. Garvey, Esq., Michael J. Haungs, Esq., Dept. of Justice, Civil Div.,
Plaintiff, Lieutenant Richard D. Selland, is before the Court on his motion for a preliminary
The essential undisputed facts are that the Chief of Naval personnel has reported to the
has been recommended for administrative separation with an Honorable discharge.
Noting plaintiff's two objections to his separation, the Chief advised the Secretary that
The General Counsel further reminded the Attorney General of her authority to direct that
If she directed suspension, plaintiff would be "separated from active duty and placed in
August 9, 1993, the Associate Attorney General advised the General Counsel that the Attorney
On the day after President Clinton's inauguration, apparently relying on the President's
But, at the merits stage, this burden must be compared, in terms of fact and law, with that
Department of Defense is permanently enjoined from discharging or denying enlistment to any
1993), stay denied, No. CV-92-6044 (9th Cir.
In order to obtain a preliminary injunction a movant must establish a substantial likelihood
These burdens on a plaintiff seeking an injunction against the military are heightened by the
Defendants are under an injunction by a federal judge not to discharge any person from the
This argument must fail for two reasons: the General Counsel explicitly renounced conduct as
And publication of it threatens irreparable injury.
An accompanying Order will grant the motion, tailor the Meinhold order to the posture of this
|
