Federal District Court Rules Fair Labor Standards Act Applies to Tribal Casino

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington has ruled that the Spokane Tribe of Indians must comply with a subpoena issued by the U.S. Department of Labor. The subpoena requires the casino to provide information regarding payroll records in order for the DOL to conduct an investigation regarding a complaint by an employee.

In its opinion, the court separates tribal business activities from tribal government activities and finds that, although the law might not apply to tribal government operations, it does apply to business activities.

Contracted Doctors not Employees of Indian Health Service

Doctors under contract with the Indian Health Service are not employees of the federal government and therefore the federal government is protected from suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act for any alleged malpractice by the doctor. A patient at the Carl Albert Indian Health Facility in Ada, Oklahoma sued the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act for malpractice due to substandard care received at the facility. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma ruled (Harjo v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services -- No. 07-CV-184-JHP) that because the doctor was under contract and actually employed by Comp Health Inc., he was not a federal employee and thus the federal government had no liability. In reaching its decision that the doctor was not an employee it used a seven factor test established by the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Woodruff v. Covington, 389 F.3d 1117, 1126.

States 2 - Tribes 0, in Recent Court Decisions

Federal courts continue to favor states' rights over those of tribal governments, as illustrated in two separate decisions handed down last week in Federal District Courts. In Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin v. Village of Hobart (Case No. 06-C-1302) Judge William C Griesbach wrote for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin that the village of Hobart could tax and initiate condemnation proceedings against land purchased by the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin. The land had been part of the reservation generations ago but was sold. In Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. Kleine (Case No. 2:05-CV-224), the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan ruled that the state could withhold payments due the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community because the tribe had not collected and paid use and sales taxes related to sales within the reservation boundaries.

Indian Preference Expanded

The U.S. Department of Interior must give preference to qualified Indians for all positions within the Department of Interior that relate to the provision of services to American Indians, not just the Bureau of Indian Affairs, according to a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Indian Educators Federation v. Kempthorne (Civil No. 04-01215). The Indian Educators Federation argued that Section 12 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 mandates employment preference for American Indians employed in any position in the Department of Interior that directly and primarily relates to the provision of services to American Indians. In ruling for the organization, the court examined the Interior Department’s historical interpretation of Section 12 and the meaning of the term “Indian Office,” as used in the act. Though acknowledging that the term is ambiguous in the Act, the court determined that the ambiguity should be “construed liberally to favor the Indians.”