holding that “Title VII coverage of civilians employed by the military encompasses actions brought by Guard technicians except when the challenged conduct is integrally related to the military’s unique structure.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “Title VII coverage of civilians employed by the military encompasses actions brought by Guard technicians except when the challenged conduct is integrally related to the military’s unique structure.”
- affirming dismissal of a Title VII complaint that alleged Army National Guard officials discriminatorily denied military promotions to a technician, then suspended him from civilian employment as a result of the denial of the requisite military promotions; holding that the challenged conduct was integrally related to the military's unique structure because the claims were based on the plaintiff's not being promoted to a certain rank, but granting an exception to allow Title VII actions in other cases where the challenged conduct is not integrally related to the military's unique structure
- stating that the Feres doctrine bars a Title VII claim by a Guard Technician only if the suit involves “personnel actions integrally related to the military’s unique structure”
- holding that while Title VII applies to National Guard technicians, except when they challenge personnel actions integrally related to the military's unique structure
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Norris v. McHugh, 857 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (2012)
However, while Mier and Brown are factually distinguishable from the case at bar, the courts’ reasoning — and the policy behind that reasoning — is nonetheless informative.
The opinion
RYMER, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in Judge Tang’s opinion except for his statement of the holding, that
Title VII coverage of civilians employed by the military encompasses actions brought by Guard technicians except when the challenged conduct is integrally related to the military’s unique structure.
The only issue before us, and all that we rightfully decide, is whether a Guard technician’s challenge to personnel actions integrally related to the military’s unique structure is cognizable under Title VII. For the reasons his opinion sets out, I agree that such a challenge fails.