Federal Court Dismisses Employment Discrimination Complaint against Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas

Here is the opinion in Nanomantube v. Kickapoo Tribe (D. Kan.) — Nanomantube v Kickapoo DCT Order

And the tribe’s motion to dismiss — Kickapoo Motion to Dismiss

From the Topeka Capital-Journal:

WICHITA – The Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas has won its argument that it is entitled to sovereign immunity as a federally recognized Indian tribe.

U.S. District Judge Richard Rogers cited the tribal immunity Thursday when he tossed out a discrimination lawsuit filed by the former acting casino manager.

Robert Nanomantube claimed in his suit that as a tribal descendant he was entitled to “Indian preference” under the tribe’s employment policies. The job he wanted went to a non-Indian.

The judge said in his written order that the federal court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

This entry was posted in Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Research, sovereign immunity and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Federal Court Dismisses Employment Discrimination Complaint against Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas

  1. Steve Campbell says:

    This was my case. Tribe has employment at will.
    Had nothing to do with race and Indian preference is political affiliation not race based.

  2. Victoria says:

    If this had been based on race and indian preference, could you have proved, would there have been a different outcome? Will we ever have protection against those non-indians who are hiding behind our tribal sovernity rights? I have filed my second claim with the EEOC and have received my second right to sue letter. However, no lawyer to help me fight the non-indians who have taken controll of an Indian casino and are discriminating against the Indians. How does one open the eyes of tribal leaders in this matter?

  3. Victoria says:

    Could the case outcome been different if it were about race and Indian preference?Tribal sovernity is tribal sovernity, how does one stop the Non-Indian hiding behind tribal sovernity? I have my second right to sue letter, it’s usless. As a Native American women I am ashame, are we saying it is ok to mistreat people unfair, even our own?

  4. Victoria says:

    I have my second right to sue letter, there must be a way to fight the non-Indian hiding behind tribal sovernity.

  5. John says:

    Sovereignty can’t be had both ways. Either the tribe is sovereign and the court can’t hear the case (sovereignty upheld), or the tribe isn’t sovereign and it’s affairs can decided by a federal judge (sovereignty given up).

    That aside, there isn’t enough information to make a decision about whether the individual was discriminated against. Unless I’m mistaken, most preference policies entitle the preferred group to the position only in case of equal qualification of both candidates. Maybe the non-indian candidate was better qualified? Maybe s/he wasn’t and it was discrimination. Short of seeing a resume it’s pretty hard to judge.

  6. Pingback: Tenth Circuit Holds that Tribal Agreement to Comply with Title VII Does Not Abrogate Tribal Immunity | Turtle Talk

Comments are closed.