# Thomasson v. Perry

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · April 5, 1996 · 80 F.3d 915

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6938448

## Case

- **Full name:** Paul G. THOMASSON, Lieutenant, United States Navy v. William J. PERRY, Secretary of Defense John H. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy, Union of American Hebrew Congregations The American Jewish Congress National Organization for Women Now Legal Defense and Education Fund Center for Women Policy Studies National Lesbian and Gay Law Association Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders American Civil Liberties Union Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Servicemembers Legal Defense Network Iaomai, Incorporated Family Research Council Iota Legal Defense Fund, Amici Curiae
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 5, 1996
- **Citations:** 80 F.3d 915; 1996 WL 157451
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Murnaghan
- **Judges:** Ervin, Hall, Hamilton, Luttig, Michael, Motz, Murnaghan, Niemeyer, Russell, Widener, Wilkins, Wilkinson, Williams
- **Cited by:** 83 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6938448

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- acknowledging the position of both parties that "the question of the validity of the regulation is not before us,” and asserting nonetheless that "I would simply invalidate the Administration's regulation as in excess of its statutory authority”
- holding that § 654(b)(2) does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s rights to equal protection and substantive due process or the First Amendment’s right to free speech
- finding that the plaintiff could not maintain a sexual harassment claim because the claim in the EEOC charge was based solely on gender discrimination

## Opinion text

MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur. Because an extended discussion of judicial deference to the military is unnecessary, I would dispose of the matter much more simply. The case concerns a rebutta-ble presumption which Thomasson did not rebut. Whether the employer was a military or nonmilitary body, it is enough that the presumption used is rational and thus constitutional.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6938448. Public record. Not legal advice.