‘Should’ isn’t certain---legal decisions prove
Green, 89 – US District Judge (EMERSON EMORY, Captain, USNR (Ret.), Plaintiff v. SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, Defendant Civil Action No. 83-2494 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 708 F. Supp. 1335; 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2993; 49 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 677; 51 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P39,276 March 22, 1989, Decided March 22, 1989, Filed, lexis)
Defendant argues that the "should" and "also desired" is "plainly permissive," while plaintiff points out that "should" is a past tense of "shall." While "shall" denotes a mandatory action when used in statutes and contracts, "should" does not ordinarily [**10] express such certainty. By examining the context in which "should" is used within the policy statements, this Court concludes that it is not used in a mandatory manner. In setting out the requirements of board membership at that time, the Navy consistently used "will" or "must." The subsection addressing minority officers was the only one in this memorandum that used "should," instead of "will" or "must."