Court Opinion

ID: 9927287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-26 18:01:14.932215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:26.899498
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10454    Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 01/26/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10454
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       SHERLYN JOHNSON,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       U.S. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Alabama
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-00036-CLM
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10454     Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 01/26/2024    Page: 2 of 3

       2                     Opinion of the Court                 23-10454

       Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Sherlyn Johnson, in a counseled complaint, sued the
       Secretary of the Army, alleging race and gender discrimination and
       unlawful retaliation. The district court concluded that it lacked
       subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed her suit without
       prejudice. Johnson now challenges that conclusion on appeal. We
       affirm.
              Johnson’s third amended complaint includes two counts:
       (1) “Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Discrimination”; and
       (2) “Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Retaliation.” The district court
       dismissed her complaint for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that the
       federal government has not waived its sovereign immunity for
       § 1981 claims. On appeal, Johnson argues that even though her
       “chosen language highlighted 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the basis and crux
       of her argument pertained to violations of [Title VII]”—claims for
       which the United States has waived its immunity. To support that
       contention, she points to other parts of the complaint that
       alternatively mention Title VII and the Federal Torts Claims Act as
       bases for the court’s jurisdiction.
              Although Johnson may have mentioned Title VII in her
       complaint, she did not bring any Title VII claims against the
       Secretary. Instead, she chose to sue under § 1981. But we have
       long held that “the United States has not waived its immunity to
       suit under” § 1981. United States v. Timmons, 672 F.2d 1373, 1380
USCA11 Case: 23-10454     Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 01/26/2024   Page: 3 of 3

       23-10454              Opinion of the Court                       3

       (11th Cir. 1982). That section “does not provide a cause of action
       for discrimination under color of federal law.” Lee v. Hughes, 145
       F.3d 1272, 1277 (11th Cir. 1998). Because Johnson’s only claims
       against the Secretary were brought under § 1981, the district court
       properly concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
       Accordingly, we AFFIRM.