Farrell v. United States Department of Defense

Background

The court held a fairness hearing on March 12, 2025, concerning the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, final approval of a class-action settlement, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The opinion identifies questions concerning whether the defendants violated class members’ equal-protection rights by issuing separation documents that identified actual or perceived sexual orientation, whether maintaining indicators of sexual orientation violated privacy rights, whether the policy violated due process, and whether the discharge-upgrade and record-correction processes were constitutionally inadequate.

Settlement Class and Representation

For settlement purposes, the court certified a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2). The class consists of veterans of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps who were administratively separated before September 20, 2011, and whose most recent service-separation document states that the basis for discharge was sexual orientation, homosexual conduct, homosexual admission, homosexual marriage, similar language, or a policy title or number signifying separation for sexual orientation. The court found that the class likely contains more than 30,000 members, making individual joinder impractical.

The court confirmed Sherrill Farrell, James Gonzales, Jules Sohn, and Lilly Steffanides as class representatives. It also confirmed Impact Fund, California Women’s Law Center, King & Spalding LLP, and Haynes and Boone LLP as class counsel.

Court’s Findings

The court found that the proposed settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e)(2). It found that the settlement resulted from good-faith, non-collusive, arms-length negotiations after factual and legal investigation, and that it represented a compromise of the parties’ positions. The court also found that the settlement did not improperly favor any individual class member.

The court found that the previously approved notice plan had been carried out and adequately explained the proposed settlement and how class members could participate or object. It found the notice process consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due process, and other applicable laws. No class member objected.

Disposition

Judge Joseph C. Spero granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, final approval of the class-action settlement, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. The court ordered the parties to implement and comply with the settlement terms. It awarded class counsel $350,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs, finding the amount reasonable under the Equal Access to Justice Act and consistent with Rule 23.

The order approved the settlement and related procedures; it did not decide the underlying constitutional claims on their merits.