[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 11 92 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 1- cv -0 00 18 -WK W -SRW MARY R. NORRI S, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SECRETARY, US DEPARTMENT OF THE A RMY, Defen 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 fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ap ril 26 , 20 13 ) Befo re WILSON andCOX, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d B OW EN, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * BOWEN, Dist ric t J ud ge : Honora ble Dudley

H. B owen, Jr., United States District J udg e for the Southern District * of Ge org ia, sitting by

designation. Case: 12-11928 Date Filed: 04/26/2013 Page: 1 of 4Pl ai nt iff Mary R. Norri s, a dua l-s ta tu s Nat io na l Gu ardtec hn ic ia n, ap pe al s th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f he r co m pl ai ntall eg in g g en de r an d a ge di sc riminat io n a ndret al ia ti on un de r Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 (“ Tit le VII”), 4 2 U.S.C. § § 2 00 0e -2 00 0e -1 7, an d t he Age Di sc riminat io n i n Em pl oym en t Actof 1 96 7 (“ ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 62 1- 63 4. Th e d is tri ctco urt di sm is se d t he cas e upo n c on cl ud in g t ha t the in tra -m il it ary imm un it y do ctrin e reco gn iz edinFere s v . Uni te d S ta te s, 3 40 U.S. 13 5, 7 1 S . Ct. 1 53 (19 50 ), ba rs he r cl ai m s. The Fere s d oc tri ne pro vi de s tha t Un it edSta te s m il it ary pe rs on ne l m ay no t br in g s ui t ag ai ns t the fed eral go ve rn m en t fo r in juri es th at“ ari se ou t o f orare i n t he co ur se of a ct iv it y

in ci de ntto servi ce.” Id . at 1 46 , 71 S. Ct. at15 9. In it s tho ro ug h an d wel l-r eas on edop in io n, the di st ric t co urt p oi nt edou t tha t o th er ci rcu it s h av e de ve lo pe d d iff

eren t ap pr oa ch es inde te rm in in g wh ethe r em pl oym en t di sc riminat io n c la im s ar e n on -jus ti ci ab le un de r th e Fer es do ctrin e. See No rri s v . McHu gh , 85 7 F . Sup p. 2 d 1 22 9, 1 23 3- 34 (M.D. Ala. 2 01 2) . For i ns ta nc e, th e Si xt h C irc ui t h as he ldth atdu al -s ta tu s m il it ary te ch ni ci an s ar e “ irr educ ib ly mil it ary in na tu re” s o t ha t the ir m il it ary an d c iv il ia n a sp ect s cann otbe sep arat ed ; thu s, em pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n s ui ts in vo lv in g dua l-s ta tu s m il it ary te ch ni ci an s ar e no n- jus ti ci ab le as am at te r of

law. See Fis he r v. Pe te rs , 24 9 F .3d43 3, 4 43 (6th

2 Case: 12-11928 Date Filed: 04/26/2013 Page: 2 of 4Ci r. 20 01 ). The Ni nt h C irc ui t’s ap pr oa chis les s ri gi d b ecau se itco ns id ers whet he r

“ th e ch al le ng edco nduc t i s i nt eg ral ly relat edto th e m il it ary’ s u ni qu e st ru ctur e.” Mi er v . Owens , 57 F.3d74 7, 7 50 (9t h C ir. 1 99 5) . In the Fif th Cir cu it , on ly

“ cl ai m s ar is in g p ur el y

fro m [a p la in ti ff em

pl oyee’s] civ il ia n p os it io n” are jus ti ci ab le , whi le cla im s t ha t “ or ig in at e fro m [a p la in ti ff em

pl oyee’s] m il it ary st atus ” are no t. Bro wn v . Uni te d S ta te s, 2 27 F.3d29 5, 2 99 (5t h C ir. 2 00 0) . If th e cl as si fic at io n o f a cl ai m

pro ve s d iff

ic ul t, the Fif

thCir cu ittu rn s t o “ fact or s s uc h a s whe th er the co nduc t i s ‘in te gr al ly relat edto th e m il it ary’ s u ni qu e st ru ctur e.’” Id. at 29 9 n .5, quo te d i n Walch v. Ad jut an t Gen .’ s Dep ’t of Tex ., 53 3 F .3d28 9, 2 99 (5t h Ci r. 20 08 ). Here, the di st ric t co urt ca refu ll y an d fu ll y de ta il edth e n atur e an d e xt en t o f Pl ai nt iff’s em

pl oym en t an d t he ch al le ng edem pl oym en t d eci si on s. Th e d is tri ct co urt co nc lu de d t ha t Pl ai nt iff fai le d t o e st ab li sh th athe r cl ai m s ar is e fro m he r st atus as aciv il ia n a s o pp os edto he r m il it ary st atus . In re vi ewin g thi s co nc lu si on de no vo , we co nc lu de th atno m at te r wha t ap pr oa chis tak eninap pl y in g t he Fere s

1 do ctrin e, th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y de te rm in edth atPla in ti ff’s cl ai m s ar e b arre d by the Fere s d oc tri ne . Accor di ng ly, th e act io n was pro pe rly dis m is se d fo r la ckof We reviewde novo the grant of a motion to di smiss for lack of subje ct matter 1 jurisdiction under F eder al Rule of Civil P roce dure 12(b)(1) . Cash v. Ba rnhar t, 327 F.3d 1252, 1255 n.4 (11th Cir. 2003)(pe r curiam). 3

Case: 12-11928 Date Filed: 04/26/2013 Page: 3 of 4subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on .

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt i s the refo re AFFIRMED.

4 Case: 12-11928 Date Filed: 04/26/2013 Page: 4 of 4