FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 13, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 05 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 6- cv -0 01 42 -WL S JAM ES STANLEY BRANSC OMB, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us SECRETARY OF THE NAVY , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll D efen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 13 , 20 12 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, MARC US, an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:App el la ntJames St an le y Bran sc om

b, p ro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f th e Nav y ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t as to hi s co m pl ai nt al le gi ng di sabi li ty dis cri m in at io n a ndret al ia ti on , invi ol at io n o f th e Am eri can s with Di sabi li ti es Act (“ ADA”), 42 U.S.C § 1 21 01 , et s eq .; the Reh ab il it at io n Act of 19 73 , 29 U.S.C. § 7 01 , et seq .; an d Ti tl e VII o f th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 (“ Tit le VII”), 4 2 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-2 (a)( 1) -(2 ). Spe ci fic al ly, Bran sc om b a rg ue s tha t th e d is tri ctco urt erredingra nt in g t he Navy’ s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t as to (1 ) hi s d is ab il ity

di sc riminat io n c la im s b ro ug htun de r th e ADA andth e Reh ab il it at io n Act , (2) hi s cl ai m s o f ret al ia ti on , invi ol at io n o f th e Reh ab il it at io n Act, an d (3 ) hi s cl ai m s b ro ug htpu rs ua ntto Tit le VII. Add it io na ll y , Bran sc om b arg ue s tha t the di stric t co urt erredinall owi ng th e Nav y to reco ve r it s l it ig at io n co st s. I. W e rev ie w de no vo a g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t. Hol lo man v. Mai l-Well Co rp . , 44 3 F .3d83 2, 8 36 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Summ ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te whe n the ev id en ce, v ie wedinth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov in g p arty , pr es en ts no ge nu in e is su e o f fac t an d t he m ov in g p arty is en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. Fed .R.Ci v.P . 56 (a); Hol lo man , 44 3 F .3dat 8 36 -3 7. Th e m ov in g pa rty bear s the in it ia l b ur de n o f pr oduc ti on . Sh iv er v. Ch er to ff , 54 9 F .3d13 42 , 213 43 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). If th is bu rd enis m et , th e n on m ov in g p arty m us t re sp on d with e vi de nc e sh owi ng th ata reas on ab le jury co ul d fi ndinit s fa vo r. Id. Whi le ag en cy de te rm in at io ns ge ne ral ly may be si gn ifi can t ev id en ce, the y are n otbi nd in g on th e d is tri ctco urt, wh ic h m us t re vi ew de no vo th e em pl oyee’s cla im s. Moo re v. Devi ne , 76 7 F .2d15 41 , 15 50 –5 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 5) ; se e a ls o El lis v. En gl an d , 43 2 F.3 d 1 32 1, 1 32 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (no ti ng a fed eral em pl oyee’s en ti tl em en t t o de no vo rev ie w of h is cla im s) . Bo th th e Am eri can s wi th Dis ab il it ie s Act(“ ADA”) an d t he Reh ab il it at io n Act p ro hi bi t em

pl oyers fr om

di sc riminat in g a ga in stdi sabl edpe rs on s. Se e 42 U.S.C. § 1 21 12 (a); 29 U.S.C. § 7 94 (a). Di sc riminat io n c la im s b ro ug htun de r th es e act s ar e g ov ern edby the same stand ard s. 2 9 U.S.C. § 79 4( d) ; Ca sh v. Smi th , 23 1 F.3 d 1 30 1, 1 30 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) . Und er b ot h a ct s, a p la in ti ff m ak es a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sabi li ty dis cri m in at io n b y sh owi ng th athe (1) is di sabl ed , (2) is a qu al ifi edin di vi du al , and(3) was s ub jecte d t o u nl awfu l d is cri m in at io n b ecau se of hi s d is ab il ity . Cl evel an d v . Home S ho pp in g N etwo rk , Inc . , 36 9 F .3d11 89 , 11 93 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) . Und er the fir stpro ng , a pe rs on is “ di sabl ed ” o nl y if h e su ffer s fr om

a ph y si cal or m en ta l i m

pa irment t ha t s ub st an ti al ly lim it s o ne or m or e o f th e m ajor li fe ac ti vi ti es . 42 U.S.C. § 1 21 02 (2 )(A); 29 U.S.C. § 7 05 (9 )(B) (he re i nc or po rat in g 3th e ADA’ s d efi ni ti on ); Ch an da v. Eng elha rd /IC C , 23 4 F .3d12 19 , 12 21 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Majo r li fe ac ti vi ti es are “ func ti on s s uc h a s ca rin g fo r on es el f, pe rfo rm in g m anua l t as ks , walk in g, s eei ng , hea rin g, s pe ak in g, b reat hi ng , lea rn in g, an d worki ng .” 29 C.F.R. § 16 30 .2(i ); Ch an da , 23 4 F .3dat 1 22 2. An i m pa irment “ subs ta nt ia ll y

li m it s” su chanact iv ity

on ly if itren de rs th e in di vi du al un ab le to pe rfo rm “ a m ajorli fe ac ti vi ty that the av erag e p ers on inth e ge ne ral po pu la ti on canpe rfo rm ” o r si gn ifi can tl y res tri ct s the “ co nd it io n, m an ne r ordu rat io n u nd er wh ic h a n i nd iv idua l ca n p erfo rm a parti cu la r m ajorli fe ac ti vi ty as co m pa redto th e co nd it io n, m an ne r, ordu rat io n u nd er wh ic h t he av erag e p ers on in th e g en eral po pu la ti on canpe rfo rm th atsame m ajorli fe ac ti vi ty.” Ch an da , 23 4 F.3 d a t 1 22 2 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Add it io na ll y , th e reg ul at io ns di sc us s (1 ) th e n atur e an d s ev eri ty of th e im pa irment; (2) th e dur at io n o r ex pe ct ed du rat io n o f th e im

pa irment; an d (3 ) th e ex pe ct edpe rm an en t o r lo ng -te rm im pa ct . 29 C.F.R. § § 1 63 0.2 (j)(1 )(i ), (ii ). A “ di m in is he d a ct iv ity to le ran ce fo r no rm al da il y act iv it ie s s uc h a s l ift in g, ru nn in g a ndpe rfo rm in g m anua l t as ks ” d oe s n otsat is fy th is requi rem en t. Ch an da , 23 4 F .3dat 1 22 2. Whe n apl ai nt iff

cla im s tha t h e is subs ta nt ia ll y li m it edinth e m ajor

li fe act iv ity of wo rk in g, h is co nd it io n m us t s ig ni fic an tl y

res tri cthi s ab il ity

to pe rfo rm

“ ei th er a cl as s o f job s o r a b ro adran ge of jo bs inva rio us cla ss es as c om pa redto 4th e av erag e p ers on ha vi ng co m pa rab le tra in in g, s ki ll s an d abi li ti es .” 29 C.F.R. § 16 30 .2(j)( 3) (I); Pri tc ha rd v. S. Co . Ser v. , 92 F.3d11 30 , 11 33 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ).

“ An i m pa irment d oe s n otsubs ta nt ia ll y li mitth e ab il ity

to workm erel y

be cau se it pr ev en ts a pe rs on fro m

pe rfo rm in g e ithe r a p art ic ul ar s pe ci al iz edjob or ana rro w ran ge of jo bs . Nor d oe s the in ab il ity to pe rfo rm

a si ng le , parti cu la r job . . . co ns ti tu te a subs ta nt ia l l im it at io n i n t he m ajorli fe ac ti vi ty of worki ng .” Pri tc ha rd , 92 F.3dat 1 13 3 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . For e xa m pl e, we ha ve he ld th atbo th th e o ccupa ti on s o f anair pl an e p il otan d apo li ce o ffi cer a re t oo na rro w a ran ge of jo bs to co ns ti tu te a “ cl as s o f job s” forth e p ur po se s o f es tabl is hi ng a di sabi li ty und er the ADA. Se e W it te r v. Del ta Air

Lin es , Inc . , 13 8 F .3d13 66 , 13 69 –7 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) (ai rli ne pi lo t); Ros sb ac h v . Cit y o f Mi ami , 37 1 F .3d 13 54 , 13 61 -6 2 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 4) (po li ce o ffi cer) . EEOC reg ul at io ns li stsev eral fact or s tha t a c ou rt m ay co ns id er i n de te rm in in g i f a p la in ti ff i s s ub st an ti al ly lim it edinhi s ab il ity to work , in cl ud in g: th e g eo gr ap hi cal areato whi chth e p la in ti ff h as reas on ab le acce ss ; the job fro m whi chth e in di vi du al ha s b eendi squa li fie d b ecau se of i m pa irment; an d t he nu m

be r an d t y pe s o f job s u si ng an d n otus in g s im il ar trai ni ng , kn owl ed ge , sk il ls , or ab il it ie s, wi th in th e g eo gr ap hi c are a. Mul li ns v. Cr ow el l , 22 8 F .3d13 05 , 13 14 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) . A pla in ti ff i s n otrequi red , ho wev er, t o p res en t ex pe rt e vi de nc e 5reg ard in g t he nu m be r of job s av ai labl e o r un av ai labl e inth e rel ev an t g eo gr ap hi c areabu t m ay

su ffi ci en tl y

de m on st rat e th e li m it at io n o n h is ab il ity to workwith te st im on y reg ard in g h is or h er o wn jo b s earc h. Id. at 1 31 4 n .18 . Und er the sec on d p ro ng , a “ qu al ifi edin di vi du al ” is anin di vi du al who , with orwitho utreas on ab le acco m m od at io n, ca n p erfo rm

th e es se nt ia l fu nc ti on s o f th e em pl oym en t p os it io n a t i ss ue . 42 U.S.C. § 1 21 11 (8 ). The p la in ti ff, inot he r wor ds ,

“ m us t s ho w eit he r th athe canpe rfo rm th e es se nt ia l fu nc ti on s o f hi s jo b wi th ou t acco m m od at io n, o r, fai li ng th at , sh ow tha t h e can pe rfo rm th e es se nt ia l fu nc ti on s of hi s jo b wi th a reas on ab le acco m m od at io n.” Davis v. Fla. Po wer &Light Co . , 20 5 F .3d13 01 , 13 05 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Thu s, i f th e p la in ti ff i s u nabl e to pe rfo rm aness en ti al fun ct io n o f hi s jo b, ev enwith a n a cco m m od at io n, “ he is , by de fin it io n, no t a ‘qu al ifi edin di vi du al ’ an d, the refo re, n otco ve redun de r th e ADA.” Id. Add it io na ll y , a pl ai nt iff

can no t m ai nt ai n acla im

of d is ab il ity

di sc riminat io n ba se d o n h is em

pl oyer’s fai lu re t o p ro vi de a reas on ab le acco m m od at io n u nl es s h e sp eci fic al ly dem an de d s uc h a n a cco m m od at io n. Gas to n v . Bell in gr ath Ga rden s & Home , Inc . , 16 7 F .3d13 61 , 13 63 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). A reas on ab le acco m m od at io n m ay in cl ud e rea ss ig nm en t t o ava can t p os it io n. 4 2 U.S.C. § 12 11 1( 9) (B); Lu ca s v. W .W . Gra in ge r, In c. , 25 7 F .3d12 49 , 12 56 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Howev er, ev enif a di sabl edem

pl oyee is qu al ifi edforan d c ap ab le of p erfo rm in g a no th er ex is ti ng 6po si ti on , th e em pl oyer is no t re qu ire d t o re as si gn th e em pl oyee if t he re i s n o va can cy . Id. at12 57 . Here, we co nc lu de fro m

th e rec or d t ha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t err in gr an ti ng th e Nav y ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t b ecau se Bran sc om b d idno t m ak e a pr ima fa ci e sh owi ng of d is ab il ity di sc riminat io n. Br an sc om b was no t

“ di sabl ed ” und er the st atut es . The Nav y off eredev id en ce tha t Br an sc om b’s res tri ct io ns wou ldno t p rev en t h im fro m work in g, ev enas aweld er. Bra ns co m b of fere d n o c on tra ry

ev id en ce, b ey on d g en eral ly poi nt in g t o h is m ed ic al reco rd s, an d n ot hi ng in di cat es th athi s i nju rie s wer e so eg reg io us th athe co ul d n otgri p to ol s o r pe rfo rm

rep et it iv e work b el ow s ho ul de r-l ev el . Add it io na ll y , we con cl ud e th atBran sc om b was no t a “ qu al ifi edin di vi du al ” un de r th e st atut es . Bran sc om b c on ced edth at , du e to hi s p hysic al li m it at io ns , he wou ldbe un ab le to ob ta in th e n eces sa ry cert ifi cat io ns or p erfo rm th e dut ie s o f hi s fo rm er wel di ng po si ti on ev enwith re as on ab le acco m m od at io ns . Fi na ll y , forth e sa ke of d is cu ss io n, Br an sc om b h as fai le d t o s ho w th atth e Nav y vi ol at edit s s tatu to ry

du ty to p ro vi de hi m

with re as on ab le acco m

m od at io ns . He no w arg ue s tha t the Navy sh ou ldha ve reas si gn edhi m to a va can t p os it io n, b ut he di d n otsh ow tha t h e ap pl ie d fo r orex pr es se d i nt eres t i n a ny suc h p os it io n. Th e da y of h is termin at io n, h e d idsu gg es t re as si gn m en t t o apo si ti on as asec ur ity 7gu ard , bu t h e d idno t o ffer ev id en ce tha t h e was qu al ifi edforth is po si ti on , was ph y si cal ly capab le of p erfo rm in g t hi s p os it io n, o r th atitwas v acan t. II. An em pl oyer m ay

no t re ta li at e ag ai ns t an em pl oyee fo r op po si ng an y em pl oym en t p ract ic e m ad e unl awfu l b y th e ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 1 22 03 (a); Hos an na -Ta bo r Eva ng el ic al Lu th er an Ch ur ch an d S

ch . v. E.E. O.C , __

_ U.S. _

__ , 13 2 S . Ct. 6 94 , 70 1 (2 01 2) . To av oi d s umm ary jud gm en t o n aret al ia ti on cla im , th e p la in ti ff m

us t s ho w (1) th athe en ga ge d i n apro te ct edact iv ity , (2) th athe su ffer edanadve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on , and(3) th atth e p ro te ct edact iv ity was cau sa ll y co nn ect edto th e adve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on . Gar re tt v. Uni v. of

Ala . at Birmin gh am Bd. of

Tr. , 50 7 F .3d13 06 , 13 15 -1 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . To reco ve r fo r ret al ia ti on , “ th e p la in ti ff n eedno t p ro ve th e und erl y in g c la im of d is cri m in at io n whi chledto h[i s] pro te st , so lo ng as [ ]he h ada reas on ab le go odfai th be li ef tha t th e d is cri m in at io n e xi st ed .” Meeks v. Co mpu te r As so c. In t’l , 15 F.3d10 13 , 10 21 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 4) (di sc us si ng a ret al ia ti on cla im bro ug htun de r Tit le VII) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Once a pr ima fa ci e cas e h as be enest ab li sh ed , th e em pl oyer ha s the bu rd enof a rti cu la ti ng a le gi ti m at e, no nd is cri m in at ory reas on for th e ch al le ng edem

pl oym en t d eci si on . Far le y v. Na ti on wi de Mut . Ins . Co. , 19 7 F.3 d 1 32 2, 1 33 6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) . The p la in ti ff the n m us t s ho w th atth e 8em

pl oyer’s pro ffer edno nd is cri m in at ory reas on is “ a p ret ex tu al rus e d es ig ne d t o m as k re ta li at io n.” Id. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Here, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredingra nt in g t he Navy’ s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t as to Bran sc om b’s cl ai m of r et al ia ti on , invi ol at io n o f th e ADA andth e Reh ab il it at io n Act , bec au se itfai le d t o a dd res s thi s cl ai m . Ins te ad , witho utm en ti on in g B ran sc om b’s s ep arat e al le ga ti on s o f ret al iati on , th e co urt gr an te d s umm ary jud gm en t as to Bran sc om b’s cl ai m s o f di sabi li ty dis cri m in at io n be cau se he was n ota “ di sabl edpe rs on ” o r a “ qu al ifi edin di vi du al .” Thi s de te rm in at io n was no t d is po si ti ve of B ran sc om b’s re ta li at io n c la im , whi ch requi redon ly a reaso nabl e b el ie f th atth e Nav y ha d v io la te d t he st atut es . Acco rd in gl y , we m

us t v acat e th e g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t as to th e ret al ia ti on cl ai m an d re m an d i t t o t he di st ric t co urt t o a dd res s the cla im inth e fi rs t i ns ta nc e. III. Tit le VII of

th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 (“ Tit le VII”) p ro hi bi ts di sc riminat io n b as edonanin di vi du al ’s “ race , col or , rel ig io n, s ex , or n at io na l or ig in ” in fed eral em

pl oym en t p ract ic es . 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -1 6( a). Abs en t di sc riminat io n b as edonon e o f th es e enum erat edch arac te ris ti cs , un fai r tr eat m en t can no t b e anun la wfu l em pl oym en t p ract ic e und er Tit le VII. Co ut u v . Mar ti n Cn ty . Bd. of

Cn ty . Comm’r , 47 F.3d10 68 , 10 74 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). 9Furth er, anem pl oyer m ay

no t d is cri m in at e ag ai ns t anem pl oyee fo r op po si ng an y

pra ct ic e m ad e unl awfu l u nd er Tit le VII. 42 U.S.C § 2 00 0e -3 (a); se e al so 29 C.F.R. § 16 14 .10 1( b) (“No p ers onsh al l b e subjec t t o re ta li at io n fo r op po si ng an y

pra ct ic e m ad e unl awfu l b y [T] it le VII of

th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act” ). In es tabl is hi ng a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f ret al ia ti on un de r Tit le VII, as un de r th e ADA, a pl ai nt iff m us t fi rs t s ho w th athe en ga ge d i n ast atut or il y pro te ct edact iv ity . Golds mith v . BagbyElev at or Co ., Inc . , 51 3 F .3d12 61 , 12 77 (11 thCir . 20 08 ). A pl ai nt iff

en ga ge s i n a“ st atut or il y pro te ct edact iv ity ” o nl y

by opp os in g a n un fai r em pl oym en t p ract ic e th atis at l eas t fa ci al ly acti on ab le un de r Tit le VII. Se e Co ut u, 47 F.3dat 1 07 4. In t hi s re sp ect , a pl ai nt iff m us t s ho w th athe ha d ago od fai th , reas on ab le be li ef tha t the em pl oyer was e ng ag edinun la wfu l em pl oym en t pr act ic es . Howa rd

v. W al gr een Co . , 60 5 F .3d12 39 , 12 44 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ), pe ti ti on fo r ce rt . fi le d , 80 U.S.L.W . 33 78 (U.S. Dec. 9, 2 01 1) (No. 1 1- 78 0) . The pl ai nt iff ne edno t p ro ve th atth e co nduc t h e o pp os edwas a ctua ll y un la wfu l, b utth e co urt m us t m eas ur e th e rea so nabl en es s o f pl ai nt iff’s bel ie f th athi s emplo y er en ga ge d i n a n u nl awfu l em pl oym en t p ract ic e ag ai ns t ex is ti ng subs ta nt iv e la w. Id. Here, we co nc lu de fro m

th e rec or d t ha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t err in gr an ti ng th e Nav y ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t as to Bran co m b’s cl ai m s u nd er Tit le VII. Bran sc om

b a ll eg edem

pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n b as edon ly on h is 10pu rp orte d d is ab il ity , whi chis no t a c ha ract eri st ic enum erat edinTit le VII. Furth er,

ba se d o n t hi s s ub st an ti ve law, Br an sc om b c ou ldno t h av e rea so nabl y be li ev e th at th e Nav y en ga ge d i n any em

pl oym en t p ract ic e m ad e unl awfu l b y Tit le VII an d, acco rd in gl y , hi s o pp os it io n was no t a s ta tu to ril y pro te ct edact iv ity . IV. Und er Fe de ral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 5 4( d) (1 ), co st s s ho ul d b e al lo wedto th e p rev ai li ng pa rty, unl es s “ a fed eral st atut e, th es e ru le s, o r a co urt o rd er p ro vi de s ot he rwis e.” Fed .R.Ci v.P . 54 (d )(1 ). Pur su an t t o t hi s ru le , th e p rev ai li ng pa rty m ay subm ita bi ll of c os ts to be tax edby the co urt ag ai ns t the no np rev ai li ng pa rty. Id.; se e Ch ap man v. AI Tra ns po rt , 22 9 F .3d10 12 , 10 39 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) ( en ba nc ). Ord in ari ly, th e en try of jud gm en t m ay no t b e d el ay edinord er t o t ax co st s. Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 5 8( e). A m ot io n fo r co st s d oe s n otam en d o r ot he rwis e co m pr om is e th e fin al ity of the jud gm en t, b ecau se it“ do es no t s eekreco ns id erat io n o f subs ta nt iv e is su es res ol ve d i n t he jud gm en t, b utrel at es ex cl us iv el y to th e co ll at eral qu es ti on of whatis du e b ecau se of t he jud gm en t.” Lu ca s v. Fla. Po wer an d L ight

Co . , 72 9 F.2 d 1 30 0, 1 30 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 4) . Here, thi s i ss ue is no t ri pe forrev ie w bec au se th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t di d n otactua ll y

ass es s an y

co st s ag ai ns t Br an sc om

b, b utin st eadm erel y

in vi te d t he Nav y to see k re co ve ry . At th e ti m e o f Brans co m b’s ap pe al , th e Nav y

ha d n otfil ed 11a b il l o f co st s an d, ac co rd in gl y , th e co urt h adno t t ax edan y co st s ag ai ns t h im . Furth er, as any

futur e awardof c os ts wou ldno t am en d t he in st an t ju dg m en t, Bran sc om

b wo ul d b e requi redto sep arat el y ap pe al fro m

th is award . Accor di ng ly, we di sm is s thi s p artof B ran sc om b’s ap pe al . Fo r th e afo rem en ti on edreas on s, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t i n pa rt, d is mis s i n p art , andva cat e an d re m an d i n p art . 1 AFFIRMED I N PART, DISMI SSED I N PART, VAC ATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

We also DENY Br anscomb’s motion to strike the Navy ’s appe llate brief as untimely . 1 12