This is an interesting case to watch, United States v. Lambert, in the Fourth Circuit. Here is the opening brief:
UPDATE: CA4 Opinion
Here is a similar case involving the Eastern Band’s efforts to raise sovereign immunity (materials here). The Lambert case is the direct challenge to the garnishment by a convict.
Here are the materials for this case, Jaramillo v. Harrah’s (Rincon Casino & Resort):
Here are the materials so far in NLRB v. Fortune Bay Resort Casino (D. Minn.):
NLRB Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum
Bois Forte Band Response to Motion for Subpoena
NLRB Reply in Support of Motion
The case is Parchester Village Neighborhood Council v. City of Richmond, and here is the opinion.
An excerpt:
Defendants the City of Richmond and the City Council of the City of Richmond (City) appeal the judgment granting a peremptory writ of mandate invalidating a municipal services agreement (MSA) entered into by the City and the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California (Tribe). The trial court concluded the City violated the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (CEQA) when it approved the MSA. We reverse.
New materials here:
Michael Cox Expert Report (response to Kevin Washburn expert report)
Older materials here.
Here is the opinion: Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux v. Prescott Appellate Opinion.
from ICT:
There’s an old adage that law professors like to use: Bad facts make bad law; in the area of tribal labor and employment law, watch out – if the facts set up the wrong way, irreparable damage will be done to tribal self-government in this field. This is a problem (or opportunity) for tribal sovereignty in the way that the test case ofBrown v. Board of Education was for the civil rights movement.
There’s been plenty of “bad press” about tribes “getting away with” practices in the workplace that may look wrong to outsiders. The assertion of sovereign immunity against individual employees may exacerbate tensions. In dismissing an action for unpaid wages brought by tribal employees, the Crow Court of Appeals recently warned, “If the tribe does not take steps to enact appropriate waivers of sovereign immunity, we believe it is only a question of when Congress will do it for us.” The Crow Tribe later enacted law to protect its workforce.
| There’s an old adage that law professors like to use: Bad facts make bad law; in the area of tribal labor and employment law, watch out. |
It’s probably more likely that the Supreme Court, not Congress, will decide whether tribes and their enterprises must succumb to federal authority over union rights, age and other discrimination laws, and a host of other federal laws governing employment relations. For now anyway, Congress is distracted by other issues. So what will a case look like that goes up to the high court?
With non-Indians taking up employment positions in Indian country in droves, federal agencies are looking for opportunities to enforce federal labor laws of general application against tribes. Tribes cannot assert the sovereign immunity defense against the United States; so these cases go forward. The question becomes whether Congress (when silent on the issue) intended such laws to apply to tribes.
Continue reading
Here is the report: Allen v Mayhew Magistrate Report
The most recent motion to dismiss: Mayhew Motion to Dismiss
Previous orders are here.
An excerpt:
As to the two remaining defendants, reading Plaintiff’s complaint liberally, he alleges that while he was an employee of the Gold Country Casino in 2003, he took the defendant Mayhews’ grandchildren into his home. He later petitioned the Tribe for tribal membership for these children, and was told he would be reimbursed for his expenses regarding the children but was warned “not to go to the white man’s court.” However, despite this warning, Plaintiff filed guardianship proceedings in the California state court in September 2003. As a result, he contends defendants Mattie and Ricky Mayhew conspired together to file false allegations against him, with the intent to have his employment with the Casino terminated in retaliation for availing himself of the state court system and because he is white. He was subsequently terminated from his employment, allegedly due to these false allegations.
If this story is true, then this tribe should do the right thing. This bad press for all of Indian Country.
From the San Diego Union Tribune via Pechanga:
During a visit to Sycuan Casino five years ago, Sarah Harris walked into a restroom altercation that she says changed her life.
Now, after what feels like countless hearings on the Indian reservation and in federal court, the 75-year-old former diesel engine mechanic still doesn’t have the $160,000 an arbitrator says she’s due.
Although tribal law says arbitration awards are to be enforced in federal court, the tribe has convinced a federal judge that he has no jurisdiction over the case.
* * *
Sycuan’s lawyers say it wasn’t an intentional dead end.
“The ordinance surely wasn’t written to steer parties to a forum the tribe knew was not going to enforce something; that was not at all the tribe’s intent,” said lawyer Jay Shapiro. “Sometimes documents get written at times when it’s not clear what the law is, or what cases a federal court will hear or not hear.”
I hope this lawyer was misquoted because this statement is awful and wrong. Such an ordinance should be amended immediately, and at a later paragraph in the same article, another tribal lawyer says it will “look at rewording the ordinance.”
The tribe doesn’t want to pay the $160,000 because a tribal arbitrator failed to follow the rules when making the award, which is reasonable in most contexts, but not this one.
The link to the three district court opinions is here.
Here is the complaint: Friends of Amador County Complaint
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.