Skip to main content

Indian Tribe's Sovereign Immunity Bars ADEA Claim


Williams v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians - Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Christine Williams ("Williams") worked in the Health Department operated by the Poarch Band of Creek Indians ("Poarch Band") for more than twenty one years.  The Health Department is located on reservation lands and the positions within the Department are considered to be jobs of Tribal government.  Williams ultimately brought a discrimination claim against the Poarch Band on the grounds that the Poarch Band violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA") when Williams was allegedly terminated because of her age and replaced by a 28 year old who "did not have enough experience to be a lab manager."  

The Poarch Band moved to dismiss the suit and argued the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity prevented the court from having subject matter jurisdiction over the matter.  The Magistrate Judge entered a report and recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted.  The District Court Judge subsequently adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation and issued a ruling that dismissed the case.  Williams appealed the lower court's ruling.

Holding:  The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals began its analysis of the issue with a reference to the fact that the federal government has long recognized the existence of Native American sovereign immunity.  Although, the immunity is not absolute and is subject to limitation, modification, or elimination altogether.  In an ADEA claim, such as the one at issue, these suits are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity unless one of two things can be shown:  1) there is a clear waiver of that immunity by the tribe or 2) by an express abrogation by Congress.  The Court of Appeals was quick to note that in this case, there was no evidence that the Poarch Band waived its immunity to the ADEA suit brought by Williams.  Therefore, the suit turned on the issue of whether there was evidence that Congress abrogated the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity when it enacted the ADEA.

Williams argued that because Congress failed to include the phrase "an Indian tribe" in the list of entities excluded from the definition of an "employer" for purposes of the ADEA, that omission indicated congressional intent to abrogate tribal sovereign immunity as a bar to suit under the ADEA.  Contrary to the arguments made by Williams, however, the Court held that the silence of the statutory text of the ADEA and its legislative history on the issue of whether Congress intended the ADEA to apply to Indian tribes was ambiguous.  As the Court pointed out, the fact that the omission of any reference to Indian tribes in the text of the ADEA, related committee reports, or the floor statements made by legislators during consideration of the ADEA lent credence to the argument that Congress never even considered the ADEA's impact upon Indian tribes.  Therefore, there was no evidence that Congress intended to abrogate Indian tribes.

Judgment:  The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling and held that the ADEA claim brought by Williams should be dismissed as the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity meant that there was no subject matter jurisdiction over the matter.

The Takeaway:  Recently, I have started to watch the show Longmire on Netflix (strongly recommended).  For those unfamiliar with it, Longmire is a mystery show about a sheriff in a small Wyoming town who solves crimes that often overlap with an Indian reservation nearby.  In several episodes, the Indian tribe's sovereign immunity comes into play...and often gets me thinking about the extent of immunity that Indian reservations have across the country. 

Interesting enough, I came across this case out of the Eleventh Circuit that dealt with a similar issue:  Whether an Indian tribe has sovereign immunity from an ADEA suit.  I think the Court did a good job walking through the rather extensive history of tribal immunity in the country, and how the legislative history of the ADEA applied in this instance.  Readers should take note that while sovereign immunity often applies in instances such as this, that sovereign immunity is not always all encompassing.  That means that a careful (and thorough analysis) of the legislative history of a statute is necessary in order to determine whether suit can be brought against an Indian tribe. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Smith

Date:  October 18, 2016

Opinion:  hr.cch.com/ELD/WilliamsPoarch101816.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more