Last week, the US Court of Federal Claims denied a Department of Justice motion to dismiss claims by 17 transgender servicemembers who had received retirement orders from the US Air Force and then had those orders revoked without explanation.
The servicemember plaintiffs in the case, Ireland v. US, are represented by GLAD Law, the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, Stapleton Segal Cochran LLC, and the Law Office of Jeremy Spiegel.
“The government should not be able to sidestep its obligation to these dedicated servicemembers,” said GLAD Law Staff Attorney Michael Haley. “Each of these plaintiffs and their families faces a potential loss of up to $1–2 million over the course of their lifetimes. These are retirement benefits they have earned and the Air Force granted them. As a country, we must honor our word to them, not rip away their benefits. We look forward to continuing to make that case in court.”
“A promise made to those who serve should mean something,” said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights. “The court’s ruling means our clients will finally have their day in court.”
As part of the government’s ban on transgender service members, the Air Force offered transgender troops who had served between 15 and 18 years the option to apply for early retirement. The plaintiffs, 17 transgender Air Force members, applied for and received retirement orders, telling them that they were entitled to retire with pensions and benefits by a specified date. Many of them began preparations for their post-military lives, including moving their families across the country and enrolling their children in new schools.
Then, without explanation, the Air Force revoked those retirements, along with the pensions and other benefits that the members were entitled to. Instead, these servicemembers were told they would need to go through involuntary separation (with no benefits) or accept a “voluntary separation” payment worth substantially less. Last November, they sued to have their retirement orders reinstated and to receive the benefits they’d earned.
The government asked the court to dismiss these servicemembers’ complaint on technical grounds. Today, the court denied that request, allowing the plaintiffs’ case to go forward.
— from a GLAD Law press release
more: gladlaw.org