# Mier v. Owens

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · June 9, 1995 · 57 F.3d 747

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6935120

## Case

- **Full name:** Arthur J. MIER v. Donald L. OWENS, in his official capacity as Adjutant General of the Arizona State Army National Guard Michael P.W. Stone, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Army
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 9, 1995
- **Citations:** 57 F.3d 747; 1995 WL 341777
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Rymer
- **Judges:** Reinhardt, Rymer, Tang
- **Cited by:** 95 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/6935120

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 cha…
- 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
- describing the promotion of military officers as “one of the most obvious examples of a personnel action that is integrally related to the military’s structure”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6935120. Public record. Not legal advice.