Here is the opinion in EEOC v. Patterson-Uti Drilling (D. Colo.) (well, the magistrate report anyway).
An excerpt:
Title VII
Graham v. Applied Geo Techs — Failure to Exhaust Tribal Court Remedies
Here are the materials in this case, out of the Southern District of Mississippi, where a plaintiff brought a race discrimination suit against a tribally owned enterprise (Mississippi Band Choctaw).
Cochise v. Salazar — Race Discrimination Complaint at Interior Dept.
Here is the opinion in Cochise v. Salazar, a case out of the D.C. federal district court — cochise-v-salazar-dct-opinion
Summary judgment for the Department.
Federal Court Holds Lumbee Tribe Must Comply with Title VII
Here is the opinion from the Eastern District of North Carolina in Cummings v. Lumbee Tribe — cummings-v-lumbee-tribe-dct-order
The issue wasn’t briefed at all, it appears, by the defendants, who just made a motion. But here are the materials anyway:
Standing Rock Housing Authority v. EEOC — TRO Case against Administrative Subpoena Dismissed
This case involved an administrative subpoena issued by the EEOC against the Standing Rock Housing Authority over claims of sex discrimination. The District of North Dakota declined to quash the subpoena on the grounds that the case was not ripe.
Silbernagel v. Standing Rock/Fort Totten School
This case, in the District Court for South Dakota, involves the question of whether the Standing Rock/Fort Totten Community School is entitled to tribal sovereign immunity or whether it has lost its tribal character. This is a discovery order opening up discovery on the question. The underlying question involves a tort claim against the school — sexual harassment.
Employment Discrimination Claim — Indian Law Confusion
In Smith-Barrett v. United States Postal Service, a case involving an employment discrimination claim brought by an American Indian woman, the Western District for New York was troubled by the fact the parties did not seem to understand the difference between discrimination on the basis of American Indian race as opposed to discrimination on the basis of American Indian political status. Here is an excerpt:
As an initial matter, the Court is troubled by the parties’ apparent confusion as to whether American Indians comprise a protected class for purposes of Title VII, and their evident inability to locate authoritative case law on the subject. While USPS correctly notes that courts addressing the issue have variously done so under the auspices of discrimination due to race, ethnicity, and national origin (curiously relying solely upon case law issued from outside this Circuit), the fact that American Indian status has been protected on multiple grounds does not erode the viability of plaintiff’s claims. Indeed, other district courts in this Circuit have repeatedly found that American Indians and their descendants are protected from discrimination by Title VII.
Here are the materials:
Aleman v. Chugash Materials
Earlier this year, the 4th Circuit held, per Wilkinson, J., that Section 1981 may be used to prosecute race discrimination claims against Alaskan Native Corporations. In short, the Court concluded that ANC’s are not sovereigns. A troubling conclusion unmoored from even Alaskan Supreme Court precedents like John v. Baker. Here are the materials:
Turtle Talk 