Eeoc v. Karuk Tribe Housing Authority

260 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2001)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D owns 100 low-income housing units on tribal land in Northern California. The Tribe occupies land held in trust by the United States. D is a governmental arm of the Tribe. Ninety-nine of the units are occupied by Indian families. The record does not reveal how many of the Indians who occupy the units are members of the Tribe. D employed twenty Indians and four non-Indians. Grant (P), an enrolled member of the Tribe, worked as a maintenance supervisor for almost seven years, until he was terminated in November 1997. He was fifty-three years old. Grant (P) challenged his firing in internal tribal administrative proceedings, which are governed by written policies and procedures. The Board of Commissioners upheld D's actions. Grant (P) further appealed to the Tribal Council, the highest governing body of the Tribe, which rejected his claim as well. Grant (P) filed a 'Charge of Discrimination' with P alleging that he had been terminated because of his age. P served on the Tribe a copy of the charge, along with a request for a written position statement and a list of questions. The Tribe claimed that the ADEA does not apply to Indian tribes and did not comply. P served on D an administrative subpoena seeking various employment records. D refused claiming that the EEOC does not have jurisdiction over Indian tribes. P filed an application to enforce the administrative subpoena and the district court held that P has jurisdiction over Indian tribes for the purpose of enforcing the ADEA and issued an enforcement order. P appealed.