well as constructive discharge under Title VII. In addition to alleging a Title VII claim, Plaintiff appears to allege constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C, § 1983 (“Sect 02) (applying the Feres doctrine to prevent Air National Guard technicians from suing their superiors under Title VII). The Feres Doctrine also bars suits for damages against federal officers for constitutional violations. See Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 305, 103 S.Ct. 2362, 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (1988) (“We hold that enlisted military personnel may not maintain a suit to recover damages from a superior officer for alleged constitutional violations.”); John, 484 Fed.Appx. at 663 (finding former Virgin Islands National Guard member’s constitutional claims barred by the Feres Doctrine); Jorden, 799 F.2d at 100 (<HOLDING>). At all times relevant to the Amended
recognizing that claims against a state under  1981 are barred by the eleventh amendment recognizing that section 1983 claims against a state agency are barred by the eleventh amendment recognizing that section 1981 claims against a state agency are barred by the eleventh amendment holding damages claims under section 1988 against state military officers are barred by feres holding that punitive damages are not recoverable against municipalities under  1988