## Facts

- Carolyn Becker, a uniformed member of the U.S. Coast Guard, alleged she was subjected to sexual harassment by Coast Guard personnel.
- The alleged harassment occurred largely during working hours on a Coast Guard base and was committed mostly by personnel superior in rank.
- Becker sued federal officials and Coast Guard personnel, asserting Title VII discrimination/harassment claims, FTCA tort claims, Fifth Amendment (Bivens-type) damages claims, and claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986.
- The district court dismissed the Title VII claims and rejected the FTCA and constitutional claims on jurisdictional and pleading grounds; it also declined to reach §§ 1985(3) and 1986 based on lack of administrative exhaustion.
- Becker appealed the dismissals.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VII applies to a uniformed member of the U.S. Coast Guard.
2. Whether the FTCA permits a service member’s tort claims for injuries deemed “incident to” military service under the Feres doctrine.
3. Whether a Coast Guard member may recover damages for alleged Fifth Amendment violations against (a) superior officers, (b) high-level officials for failure to train/supervise, or (c) the Coast Guard as an agency.
4. Whether claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986 may proceed absent exhaustion of available administrative remedies.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
- Title VII claims were properly dismissed because Title VII does not cover uniformed members of the Coast Guard.
- FTCA claims were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the alleged injuries were incident to military service under Feres.
- Fifth Amendment damages claims failed to state a claim: suits against superior officers were barred, challenges to military training/supervision were barred, and no direct constitutional damages action lies against a federal agency.
- The court did not reach the merits of the §§ 1985(3) and 1986 claims because Becker failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII’s federal-sector protections do not extend to uniformed members of the armed forces, including the Coast Guard.
- Under the Feres doctrine, the FTCA does not allow service-member suits for injuries “incident to” military service; claims that would question military discipline, supervision, or control are barred.
- Enlisted personnel may not maintain a constitutional damages action against superior officers for alleged constitutional violations.
- Courts will not entertain damages claims that require inquiry into military management decisions such as training and supervision.
- Bivens-type constitutional damages remedies are not available directly against federal agencies.
- Failure to exhaust applicable administrative remedies can preclude judicial consideration of claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a Coast Guard member’s employment, tort, and constitutional claims because Title VII does not cover uniformed service members, the FTCA is unavailable for injuries incident to service, Bivens-type remedies were barred against superiors, military management decisions, and the agency itself, and the remaining civil-rights claims were not reviewable due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies.


Becker v. Peña, 107 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 1997)