The district court in CECGAC v. Hogen held that the NIGC’s determination that Seneca gaming at its Buffalo parcel was valid under the land claims settlement exception was arbitrary and capricious, because no extant Seneca land claim existed at the time of the time of the settlement.
Western District of New York
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:
CECGAC v Hogan (W.D. N.Y) — Seneca Nation of Indians Gaming Case
Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County v. Hogan [NIGC] is proceeding. The Seneca Nation of Indians just filed an amicus brief in the matter. Here’s a news article on the question.
Here are the materials (so far):
Turtle Talk 