technician positions are “irreducibly military in nature.” Id. Unpersuaded by the plaintiffs attempt to distinguish the civilian nature of her duties, the court went as far as noting that “the National Guard as a whole is irreducibly military.” Id. at 440. The Sixth Circuit has adhered to this “bright line” rule and has continued to consistently hold that, because dual-status National Guard positions are “irreducibly military in nature,” discrimination claims brought by such technicians are non-justi-ciable. See e.g., Weaver v. Tennessee National Guard, 30 Fed.Appx. 554 (6th Cir.2002) (Title VII claim barred); Brown v. Roche, 206 Fed.Appx. 430, 432 (6th Cir.2006) (affirming Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal of plaintiffs ADEA claim); see also Bowers v. Wynne, 615 F.3d 455, 457 (6th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). In Bowers, the district court determined that
holding claims based on title vii subject to arbitration holding title vii and rehabilitation claims brought by a dualstatus air reserve technician barred recognizing ageplusgender discrimination claim when complaint brought claims under adea and title vii holding that a trustees claim was barred by res judicata and stating that the trustee could have asked the bankruptcy court to reserve his fraud claims for later adjudication which would have avoided his claims being barred holding that air force mechanic was barred by feres from bringing claims under title vii and accordingly the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his claims under rule 12b1