## Facts

- Joseph S. Hajdusek enrolled in the U.S. Marine Corps Delayed Entry Program (DEP) as a “poolee,” a pre-enlistment status in which participants are not active-duty Marines and are not entitled to active-duty benefits.
- After Hajdusek missed a required recruiting-station event, a Marine recruiter ordered him to report for a special physical-training session as a corrective measure.
- Hajdusek alleged the session was substantially more demanding than prior DEP training and amounted to an unreasonable program of physical activity.
- He developed severe rhabdomyolysis and complications that allegedly left him permanently disabled.
- Because he remained a DEP poolee, he sought damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging the United States was liable for the recruiter’s negligent training order.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), concluding the FTCA discretionary function exception applied.

## Issues

1. Whether the FTCA discretionary function exception bars a negligence claim arising from a Marine recruiter’s decisions about the content and intensity of DEP physical training.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held the challenged conduct involved judgment or choice because governing guidance did not mandate a specific PT regimen or prohibit particular exercises or intensity.
- The court held the discretion was the type the exception protects because DEP training decisions are susceptible to policy considerations, including readiness, attrition reduction, discipline, and safety.
- Allegations that the training was excessively strenuous or negligent did not avoid the exception, which applies even if discretion is abused.

## Legal Principles

- The FTCA’s discretionary function exception withdraws jurisdiction over claims based on a government employee’s discretionary acts, even when alleged to be negligent.
- The exception applies under a two-part test: (1) the conduct must involve judgment or choice rather than being compelled by a mandatory directive; and (2) the judgment must be of a type susceptible to social, economic, or political policy analysis.
- Where agency guidance sets general objectives but leaves significant latitude in implementation, decisions made within that latitude ordinarily satisfy the discretion prong.
- Decisions about training design and enforcement may fall within the exception when they require balancing program goals (readiness, discipline, retention) against safety risks.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that a Marine recruiter’s DEP physical-training decisions were discretionary and policy-susceptible, so the FTCA discretionary function exception barred the poolee’s negligence suit and required dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


Hajdusek v. United States, 895 F.3d 146 (1st Cir. 2018)