Second Circuit Brief in IFP, Pro Se Employment Discrimination Complaint against Mohegan Sun Casino

Here is the tribe’s brief in Tremblay v. Mohegan Sun Casino:

Mohegan Brief

From the brief:

On May 20, 2014, the Court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss based on sovereign immunity. The full text of the decision is as follows:

ORDER granting [27] Motion to Dismiss; denying [28] Motion Not to Dismiss. Plaintiff brings this action against her former employer, the Mohegan Sun Casino, alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. The motion is granted. The Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut, which operates the defendant Casino through the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (“MTGA”), is a federally recognized Indian tribe. “As a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe *4 has waived its immunity.” Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Mfg. Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 754 (1998). Neither has occurred here. The Mohegan Tribe has not waived its immunity from suit in this Court, and the statutes under which plaintiff brings this action do not abrogate the Tribe’s immunity. Title VII is expressly inapplicable to Indian tribes, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)(1), and nothing in the ADEA revokes tribal sovereign immunity from private lawsuits. Garcia v. Akwesasne Housing Authority, 268 F.3d 76, 86 (2d Cir. 2001). Thus, plaintiff cannot bring claims of employment discrimination against an Indian tribe under Title VII or the ADEA. The Mohegan Tribe has enacted legislation establishing a tribal court system as well as legislation waiving the sovereign immunity of the Tribe and the Gaming Authority for discrimination claims by employees against the MTGA, but only in the Mohegan Gaming Disputes Court. Thus, plaintiff’s only remedy is to proceed in that Court. Accordingly, because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims, defendant’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 27] is granted and plaintiff’s motion not to dismiss [ECF No. 28] is denied. The Clerk is directed to close the case. So ordered. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 05/20/2014. (Bialek, T.)

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