The Supreme Court is correct to protect the basic right of free speech which allows people and organizations to demonstrate on public grounds as a matter of Free Speech. Protesting of military funerals sanctioned under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution which ironically all military personnel have sworn an oath to protect!

It is reprehensible in the perspective of NCOA that those who die in the line of duty should have their funerals protested by despicable demonstrations that dishonor the noble military service of those who have fallen in the line of duty.  The Westboro Baptist Church now “sanctioned” by the Supreme Court will undoubtedly continue its disingenuous and hurtful protests of military funerals to gain further publicity and notoriety.   In the name of religion, they will cause personal anguish for the grieving families of military personnel who ensured their right of free speech.  Perhaps these church members would be better served seeking greater understanding of their religious values and the preaching of their church than looking to disrupt their neighbors who mourn the loss of a loved one. 

Henderson v. Shinseki – Court ruled on time limits governing veteran claims.  Veteran Henderson appealed the 120-day statute of limitations for challenging a denial of veteran’s benefits is not jurisdictional.  The ruling overruled the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which had affirmed the holding the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims (US CAVC) that the 120 day rule was jurisdictional and thus not subject to equitable tolling.  The Supreme Court decision will allow Henderson and other disabled veterans to submit beyond the 120-day deadline that VA had firmly enforced to deny veteran claims.

House Committee on Veterans Affairs Ranking Democratic Member Bob Filner, commenting on the Supreme Court’s decision remarked, “Congress created this Article I court (US CAVC) so that VA would not be the final arbiter of both veterans’ claims and appeals-- so that veterans would get a fairer bite at the appeals apple. Today’s Supreme Court decision will go a long way in helping to restore the equity Congress envisioned by removing an unnecessary bureaucratic roadblock and allowing equitable tolling relief where warranted for our nation’s disabled veterans.  I am pleased that this case was decided the right way--in a manner that upholds equitable treatment of our nation’s veterans.  This is a great win for our veterans and their families.”

            Staub v. Proctor Hospital - Staub sued Proctor under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), which forbids an employer to deny “employment, reemployment, retention in employment, promotion, or any benefit of employment” based on a person’s “membership” in or “obligation to perform service in a uniformed service,”  38 U. S. C. §4311(a), and provides that liability is established “if the person’s membership . . . is a motivating factor in the employer’s action.” He contended not that Buck was motivated by hostility to his military obligations, but that Mulally and Korenchuk were, and that their actions influenced Buck’s decision.  A jury found Proctor liable and awarded Staub damages, but the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that Proctor was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the decision maker had relied on more than Mulally and Korenchuk advice in making her decision.

Held: If a supervisor performs an act motivated by antimilitary animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable under USERRA.  Finally, there was evidence that both Mulally and Korenchuk had the specific intent to cause Staub’s termination.