Court Upholds Benefits Denial

A Standing Rock Sioux man who was denied increased retirement benefits by the Bureau of Indian Affairs lost his appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The man, Phillip Lawrence, has been employed for many years by the BIA. He was denied increased retirement benefits payable to employees whose duties include firefighting. He sued, alleging that the BIA failed to notify him of an application deadline for retroactive reclassification. As a result he missed the deadline and benefits were denied him. He claimed that the BIA’s failure to notify him constituted a violation of the federal trust responsibility towards Indians, the Indian Preference Act and employment discrimination due to race. The district court granted summary judgment for the BIA, and the 9th Circuit confirmed. The case is Lawrence v. Department of Interior.

In order to qualify for the enhanced benefits, Lawrence, who served in a position not approved as a firefighter was required to apply for credit and prove that his duties included firefighting. In 1987, the Civil Service regulations were changed so that credit would be extended for only one year prior to the application date. The change was published in the Federal Register. Under the new regulation, the existing employees could receive credit for their entire career if they filed before September 30, 1989.

The BIA notified agency personnel officers, superintendents and division chiefs of the change and instructed them to remind employees who may be eligible under the “special retirement provisions.” However Lawrence received no actual notice of the change until nine years later when he attended a retirement workshop for firefighters and law enforcement personnel.

In its opinion, the 9th Circuit said that the agency’s failure to provide employees with “actual and timely notice of the regulatory change is regrettable – particularly in light of the agency’s repeated written instructions to supervisors to provide such notice – but trust doctrine imposes no special notice obligation …” The court also found that Indian Preference did not apply in this case.