Witt v. Department of the Air Force et al

Filing 60

ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Department of the Air Force, Donald H Rumsfeld, Michael W Wynne, Mary L Walker.(Phipps, Peter)

Witt v. Department of the Air Force et al

Doc. 60

Case 3:06-cv-05195-RBL

Document 60

Filed 10/23/2009

Page 1 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Judge Ronald B. Leighton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA MAJOR MARGARET WITT, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. C06-5195 RBL DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendants the Department of the Air Force (the "Air Force"), Robert M. Gates, the Secretary of Defense, Michael B. Donley the Secretary of the Air Force, and Colonel Janette Moore-Harbert, the commander of the 446th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron, McChord Air Force Base, hereby answer plaintiff's Complaint (Docket #1) in the following numbered paragraphs, which correspond to the Complaint's numbered paragraphs.1 1. This paragraph contains plaintiff's characterization of this action, not factual

allegations requiring a response. 2. This paragraph contains a legal conclusion, the basis for the Court's subject

In this official-capacity action, the present office holders have been automatically substituted for their predecessors as defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
( C 0 6 -5 1 9 5 -R B L ) DEFENDANTS' ANSW E R T O PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT - 1
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH P.O. BOX 883, BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044 [phone]

1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:06-cv-05195-RBL

Document 60

Filed 10/23/2009

Page 2 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

matter jurisdiction, to which no factual response is required. 3. This paragraph contains a legal conclusion, the basis for the Court's subject

matter jurisdiction, to which no factual response is required. To the extent that a factual response is required, defendants deny that 28 U.S.C. § 1346 provides a basis for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. 4. Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph. The

second sentence of this paragraph contains plaintiff's characterization of this action, not factual allegations requiring a response. 5. Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph, except to admit that the United

States Department of the Air Force is a military department of the United States of America. 6. 7. Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. In this official-capacity action,

Robert M. Gates has been automatically substituted for Donald H. Rumsfeld in the office of Secretary of Defense. 8. Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. In this official-capacity action,

Michael B. Donley has been automatically substituted for Michael W. Wynne in the office of Secretary of the Air Force. 9. Defendants deny that Colonel Mary L. Walker is a defendant in this official-

capacity action; rather Colonel Janette Moore-Harbert has been automatically substituted for Colonel Walker in the office of Commander, 446th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron, McChord, Air Force Base. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph except to admit that Colonel Walker was the Commander, 446th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron, McChord, Air Force Base, in November 2004, when administrative discharge proceedings against plaintiff were initiated. 10. required. 11. required.
( C 0 6 -5 1 9 5 -R B L ) DEFENDANTS' ANSW E R T O PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT - 2
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH P.O. BOX 883, BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044 [phone]

This paragraph contains a legal conclusion to which no factual response is

This paragraph contains a legal conclusion to which no factual response is

Case 3:06-cv-05195-RBL

Document 60

Filed 10/23/2009

Page 3 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

12.

This paragraph contains a legal conclusion to which no factual response is

required. To the extent that a factual response is required, defendants deny that the selection cited constitutes the only pertinent part of 10 U.S.C. § 654. 13. The first sentence of this paragraph contains a legal conclusion to which no

factual response is required. To the extent that a factual response is required, defendants deny that the selection cited constitutes the complete text of Air Force Instruction ("AFI") 36-3209 and that the quoted text fully and accurately reflects the contents of AFI 36-3209 §§ 2.30-33. Defendants deny the allegations contained in the second sentence of this paragraph. 14. This paragraph contains a legal conclusion to which no factual response is

required. To the extent that a factual response is required, defendants deny that the quoted text fully and accurately reflects the contents of AFI 36-3209 § 4.17.5. 15. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the allegations in this paragraph. 16. As to the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph, defendants deny that

plaintiff entered the Air Force on March 27, 1987, but defendants admit that plaintiff attended Military Indoctrination Medical Service Officers and that plaintiff was commissioned a Second Lieutenant on April 11, 1989. Defendants admit the allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph. Defendants deny the allegations in the third sentence of this paragraph. 17. Defendants admit that plaintiff's initial duty assignment included the

responsibilities identified in this paragraph, but defendants deny that plaintiff held each of those responsibilities simultaneously and for the entire duration of her first assignment. 18. Defendants admit the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph.

Defendants deny the allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph except that defendants (i) admit that plaintiff was transferred to Scott Air Force Base and that plaintiff served, at various times and not necessarily simultaneously, as a flight nurse, nurse scheduler, flight nurse examiner in either the 57th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron or the 375th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron, and (ii) are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether plaintiff actually served as a medical aircrew training officer. As to the allegations in the third
( C 0 6 -5 1 9 5 -R B L ) DEFENDANTS' ANSW E R T O PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT - 3
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH P.O. BOX 883, BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044 [phone]

Case 3:06-cv-05195-RBL

Document 60

Filed 10/23/2009

Page 4 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

sentence of this paragraph, defendants admit that some Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron personnel are responsible for in-flight management and care of ill and injured patients transported by military aircraft, but deny that all Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron personnel have those responsibilities. 19. Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph except to

admit that plaintiff was discharged from active duty on December 15, 1995; that plaintiff transferred into ready reserve status on December 16, 1995; and that plaintiff was reassigned to the 446th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron on March 18, 1996. Defendants deny the allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph except that defendants admit that plaintiff served, at various times and not necessarily simultaneously, as a flight nurse, flight nurse examiner, officer in charge of weight management and physical fitness, officer in charge of ground training, and the standards and evaluation flight commander. Defendants deny the allegations in the third sentence of this paragraph. 20. Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph except to admit that plaintiff

received the awards indicated (with the exception of the Air Force Training Medal). 21. Defendants admit the allegations in this paragraph except to deny the implication

that President George W. Bush personally presented an Air Medal to plaintiff. 22. Defendants admit that plaintiff received the award referenced in the first sentence

of this paragraph, but they deny that plaintiff fully and accurately characterized the basis for the award, and instead defendants refer to the copy of the award for its full and accurate contents. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph. 23. Defendants deny the allegations contained in the first sentence of this paragraph.

As to the allegations in the remainder of the paragraph, defendants admit that plaintiff's annual review contained that identified language (except for the word "crated" in line 9). 24. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the allegations in this paragraph except that defendants deny that Colonel Mary Walker remains a defendant in this action.
( C 0 6 -5 1 9 5 -R B L ) DEFENDANTS' ANSW E R T O PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT - 4
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH P.O. BOX 883, BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044 [phone]

Case 3:06-cv-05195-RBL

Document 60

Filed 10/23/2009

Page 5 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

25.

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the allegations in this paragraph. 26. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the allegations in this paragraph. 27. Defendants admit the allegations contained in the first sentence of this paragraph.

Defendants deny the allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph to the extent that the sentence suggests or implies that the civilian woman referenced in this second sentence is the same civilian woman who is referenced in the first sentence of this paragraph; to the extent that the civilian woman referenced in the second sentence of this paragraph is separate and distinct from the civilian woman referenced in the first sentence of this paragraph, defendants admit the allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph. 28. Defendants deny the allegations contained in the first three sentences of this

paragraph except to admit that plaintiff was informed that an administrative separation action was being initiated against plaintiff for homosexual conduct under the provisions of AFI 363209. Defendants admit the allegations contained in the fourth sentence of this paragraph. 29. As to the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph, defendants deny that

plaintiff received the referenced certified mail on November 9, 2004, and defendants deny that plaintiff's characterization of the memorandum fully and accurately reflects its contents and instead refer to the copy of the letter for its full and accurate contents. Defendants admit the allegations contained in the second sentence of this paragraph. Defendants deny the allegations in the third sentence of this paragraph except to admit that plaintiff has not participated in any pay or points activity for the Air Force Reserves after November 5, 2004. 30. Defendants deny that this paragraph fully and accurately reflects the contents of

the letter and instead refer to the copy of the letter for its full and accurate contents. 31. Defendants deny that the first sentence of this paragraph fully and accurately

reflects the contents of the document and instead refer to the copy of the document for its full and accurate contents. Defendants admit the allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph. Defendants deny the allegations in the third sentence of this paragraph and instead admit that
( C 0 6 -5 1 9 5 -R B L ) DEFENDANTS' ANSW E R T O PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT - 5
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH P.O. BOX 883, BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044 [phone]

Case 3:06-cv-05195-RBL

Document 60

Filed 10/23/2009

Page 6 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

plaintiff's discharge hearing has been held at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia. 32. 33. Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph.

Defendants further deny that plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever and deny any and all allegations not specifically responded to herein. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 1. Plaintiff has waived and/or forfeited her ability to seek reinstatement based on

10 U.S.C. § 654(b)(1). PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, defendants pray that the Court dismiss plaintiff's suit with prejudice, render judgment that plaintiff take nothing, assess costs against plaintiff, and award defendants all other relief to which they are entitled.

Dated: October 23, 2009

Respectfully submitted, TONY WEST Assistant Attorney General JENNY A. DURKAN United States Attorney VINCENT M. GARVEY Deputy Branch Director MARION J. MITTET Assistant United States Attorney

Of Counsel: MAJOR LINELL LETENDRE AFLOA/JACL Military Personnel Litigation 1501 Wilson Blvd, 7th Floor Rosslyn, VA 22209-2403

/s/ Peter J. Phipps PETER J. PHIPPS Senior Counsel United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] Mailing Address: Post Office Box 883, Ben Franklin Station

( C 0 6 -5 1 9 5 -R B L ) DEFENDANTS' ANSW E R T O PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT - 6

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH P.O. BOX 883, BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044 [phone]

Case 3:06-cv-05195-RBL

Document 60

Filed 10/23/2009

Page 7 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Washington, D.C. 20044 Courier Address: 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Attorneys for Defendants

( C 0 6 -5 1 9 5 -R B L ) DEFENDANTS' ANSW E R T O PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT - 7

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH P.O. BOX 883, BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044 [phone]

Case 3:06-cv-05195-RBL

Document 60

Filed 10/23/2009

Page 8 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 23, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system that I understand will send notification of such filing to the following persons:

James E. Lobsenz Carney Badley Spellman, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] Aaron H. Caplan Associate Professor Loyola Law School Los Angeles 919 Albany Street Los Angeles, CA 90015 Tel: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail]

Sarah A. Dunne ACLU of Washington Foundation 705 Second Avenue, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail]

/s/ Peter J. Phipps PETER J. PHIPPS United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch P.O. Box 883, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] Attorney for Defendants

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH P.O. BOX 883, BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044 [phone]