By Abenaki Dawn | AuxBeacon News Contributor
[Editor’s Note: We apologize for not releasing this story earlier. Thank you for re-sending it through multiple channels. We are sorry for the loss of your heroic friend or mentor. Thank you for this well timed contribution.]
Your investigator/authors are doing a good job, but this is my second request in trying to help you. The first was sent in as a comment around this time last month. I am now sending as a comment and as a contact entry.
Carol Anne Grant just recently passed away on May 1st 2018. I sent you her two decade nightmare story in Civil Air Patrol and her obituary. The legal document (see below) exposes how Civil Air Patrol appears to create and circulate false secret-squirrel charges to which the accused never gets the opportunity to refute. We all know that CAP continues to use this tactic to preserve their good ol’ boy club using federal and state tax payer funds.
Could you please publish this for us?
On May 1st 2018, Carol Anne (Pancko) Grant passed away at her home in Atkinson, New Hampshire.
She was born in Fort Jay, New York on July 10th 1944. She received her Bachelor’s Degree in Education from Trenton State College and worked as a teacher in the Boston school system at the Mary Curley School in Jamaica Plain. She taught History and Social Studies at Haverhill High School, Haverhill.
An active citizen of the Town of Atkinson, she served in many roles including Chairman of the Board of Selectman from 1981 to 1983 and the Planning Board from 1980 to 1983.
A certified E.M.T, she held private and commercial pilot ratings and she was certified as a Flight Instructor. She performed in many competitions as an Aerobatics Pilot. She was a member of the Civil Air Patrol as a search and rescue pilot and also trained in ground search and rescue. She enjoyed participating in the Boston Marathon and also enjoyed competitive fencing and shooting.
Her obituary was published on May 4th 2018.
The Background for the Lawsuit(s) vs. Civil Air Patrol
In 1986, Carol Anne Grant received a failing score on her CAP test flights, known as “check flights,” allegedly because the pilot supervising the check flights did not believe women should serve as CAP pilots. Because she failed the check flights, Grant was unable to participate in certain important CAP activities such as search and rescue missions conducted at the direction of the United States Air Force. Following CAP regulations, Grant challenged this action, filing discrimination grievances with the wing commander. When these efforts proved unsuccessful and she was terminated from CAP, Grant filed suit in this court [UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE]. That suit was dismissed with prejudice after the court approved the parties’ stipulation in which CAP agreed to reinstate Grant to her former rank if she completed and passed a check flight conducted by an independent pilot. Grant did so and was reinstated.
After her reinstatement, Grant was denied access to further check flights for mission pilots until the summer of 1990. That summer she was permitted to take the test and passed. CAP pilots allegedly refused to administer the test to Grant and told her it was because of the 1987 suit she had filed against CAP. In addition, Grant was denied mission coordinator training allegedly because she was a woman and in retaliation for the 1987 suit [which she effectively won].
In February 1989, Grant was placed on probation for ninety days for alleged misconduct. CAP failed to inform her of the charges against her prior to this notification. After her probation ended, Grant filed new complaints for verbal harassment which allegedly were never processed. Colonel Dale Hardy subsequently initiated proceedings to terminate Grant on two different occasions in late 1989. Pending the resolution of the latter proceeding, Grant was suspended from the New Hampshire Wing. Grant appealed that suspension to the Northeast Regional Appeal Board and the Board found in Grant’s favor.
Grant alleges that the harassment and retaliation by Hardy and Colonel Alger Conger increased after her appeal succeeded.
She also claims that she filed several complaints which were not investigated, but rather were used as a basis for further disciplinary action against her.
In 1991, a similar series of events transpired whereby Grant was denied participation in mission flights and Hardy commenced another termination proceeding against her. This prompted Grant to file the present action, for which the Civil Air Patrol defendants are asking for summary judgement and dismissal.
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to the constitutional claims. Defendants argued that because CAP is not a federal actor under any of the tests promulgated by the Supreme Court, Grant has no constitutional claim against CAP or its employees. In response. Grant contends that CAP, in light of its function, staffing, and financing, is a component of the United States Air Force and therefore a federal actor subject to constitutional prohibitions.
The 1995 Decision Leading to Aux-On vs Aux-Off
The Honorable Paul Barbadoro, United States District Judge, was the youngest candidate to ever be appointed as a federal judge. He was nominated by President George H. W. Bush on September 9, 1992, to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. He reviewed multiple criteria in forming his decision.
Applying these criteria, I conclude that CAP and the Air Force are sufficiently interdependent to qualify CAP as a governmental actor under the symbiotic relationship test.
First, CAP’s principle mission is to assist the government in disaster relief, search and rescue, and drug interdiction missions. These are activities which traditionally have been performed either primarily or exclusively by governmental entities. As a result, when CAP is performing such activities, it has been deemed by Congress to be an instrumentality of the United States.
Second, CAP’s activities are tightly controlled by the Air Force…
Third, CAP is highly dependent on the government for financial and material support. The government provides CAP with most of its funding, the government allows CAP free use of an Air Force base for its headquarters, and permits it to use other government properties for its bookstore and a printing plant. Most of CAP’s equipment has been donated by the government.
Finally, the government reimburses CAP for the fuel and maintenance costs resulting from 40,000 flight hours of the 130,000 hours CAP flies per year.
Fourth, CAP is highly regulated by the government…
Finally, CAP and the Air Force are mutually dependent and each derives significant benefits from their close relationship…
In summary, while CAP is nominally a private corporation, it performs essential government functions on behalf of the Air Force, the Air Force exercises considerable control over its activities and provides most of its funding, and CAP and the Air Force are so interdependent that they can fairly be said to be in a symbiotic relationship. Accordingly, CAP and its members are subject to the duties that the constitution imposes upon a governmental actor and [The Civil Air Patrol] defendants’ summary judgment motion must be denied.