Solomon v. Interior Reg'l Hous. Auth.

313 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2002) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55077

Description

Ninth Circuit Finds No Private Right of Action to Enforce Indian Hiring Preferences Under Federal Grants to Indian Organizations

Abstract

The Ninth Circuit held that Indian hiring preference requirements for federal grants to Indian organizations did not create a private right of action for a Native Alaskan who applied unsuccessfully for a job with defendant Native Alaskan regional housing authority. 25 U.S.C. § 450e(b) requires that Indians be given preference in employment and training opportunities connected with grants to Indian organizations or for the benefit of Indians. Plaintiff, a Native Alaskan, twice applied for jobs with defendant, a block grant recipient under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act. When defendant hired a non-Indian instead of plaintiff, plaintiff alleged that defendant’s choice violated 25 U.S.C. § 450e. The trial court found that plaintiff had no private right of action under Section 450e, and the Ninth Circuit upheld the trial court’s summary judgment for defendant. The Ninth Circuit was undecided as to whether Section 450e(b) was enacted for the benefit of Indians individually or collectively. The Ninth Circuit found that the statute’s legislative intent was to allow Indian people and tribes greater freedom in self-governance, not to confer rights on individual Indians. Since many of the grants subject to the statute’s preference would be Indian organizations, subjecting these organizations to individual actions for damages for decisions to hire non-Indians would undermine the organizations’ autonomy and conflict with the purpose of promoting tribal self-governance. The Ninth Circuit held that a federal remedy for violation of the statute was inappropriate because enforcement should be left to the tribes. A person aggrieved by a grant recipient’s violation of the hiring preferences could pursue remedies administratively or under the terms of the grant contract, the Ninth Circuit said.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Docket Date
2002-12-20 00:00:00+00:00

Files

Filed under: