MENOMINEE TRIBAL ENTERPRISES v. Solis, No. 09-2806.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtPOSNER, FLAUM and WOOD, Circuit
Citation601 F.3d 669
PartiesMENOMINEE TRIBAL ENTERPRISES, Petitioner, v. Hilda L. SOLIS, Secretary of Labor, Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. 09-2806.
Decision Date24 March 2010

601 F.3d 669

MENOMINEE TRIBAL ENTERPRISES, Petitioner,
v.
Hilda L. SOLIS, Secretary of Labor, Respondent.

No. 09-2806.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued February 19, 2010.

Decided March 24, 2010.


601 F.3d 670

Glenn C. Reynolds (argued), Madison, WI, for Petitioner.

Mark J. Lerner, I (argued), Department of Labor, Appellate Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before POSNER, FLAUM and WOOD, Circuit Judges.

POSNER, Circuit Judge.

The Menominee Indian tribe owns a sawmill on its reservation in Wisconsin. The Department of Labor cited the tribe (technically the tribal entity that operates the sawmill, but it has no substantial existence apart from the tribe) for violations of OSHA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651 et seq., rejecting the tribe's contention, renewed in this petition to review the Department's decision, that it is exempt. The Department asks us to ignore some of the arguments that the tribe makes on the ground that they were not made at the administrative level. That may be right, but they are pure issues of law, they have been briefed and argued, and for us to refuse to resolve them would simply invite future litigation between these parties. OSHA's exhaustion provision, 29 U.S.C. § 660(a), allows for exceptions, although the provision refers to "extraordinary circumstances" and so has been construed narrowly. Globe Contractors, Inc. v. Herman, 132 F.3d 367, 370-71 (7th Cir.1997); Harry C. Crooker & Sons, Inc. v. OSHRC, 537 F.3d 79, 85 (1st Cir.2008); Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Secretary of Labor, 586 F.2d 683, 688-89 (9th Cir.1978); see also Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U.S. 1, 23-24, 94 S.Ct. 1028, 39 L.Ed.2d 123 (1974).

The Occupational Safety and Health Act contains an express exemption for the federal government (except the Postal Service) and for state and local governments, 29 U.S.C. § 652(5), but says nothing about Indian tribes. We cannot terminate this lawsuit with that observation, however (though neither can we accept the tribe's contention that since a tribe is just like a state or a local government it is within the express exemption for state and local government).

Statutes of general applicability that do not mention Indians are nevertheless usually held to apply to them. FPC v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99, 116, 80 S.Ct. 543, 4 L.Ed.2d 584 (1960) ("a general statute in terms applying to all persons includes Indians and their property interests"); Smart v. State Farm Ins. Co., 868 F.2d 929, 932 (7th Cir.1989) ("general statutes ... whose concerns are widely inclusive and do not affect traditional Indian or Tribal rights"); Donovan v. Coeur d'Alene Tribal Farm, 751 F.2d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir.1985); Felix S. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 2.03, pp. 128-32 (2005 ed.); William Buffalo & Kevin J. Wadzinski, "Application of Federal and State Labor and Employment Laws to Indian Tribal Employers," 25 U. Memphis

601 F.3d 671
L.Rev. 1365, 1377-83 (1995); Vicki J. Limas, "Application of Federal Labor and Employment Statutes to Native American Tribes: Respecting Sovereignty and Achieving Consistency," 26 Ariz. St. L.J. 681, 694-700 (1994). But there are exceptions; a statute of general applicability will be held inapplicable to Indians if it would interfere with tribal governance, as in Reich v. Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 4 F.3d 490 (7th Cir.1993), where we rejected the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to Indian game wardens. Or if it would clash with rights granted Indians by other statutes or by treaties with Indian tribes (which are the legal equivalent of federal statutes, Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504, 510-11, 16 S.Ct. 1076, 41 L.Ed. 244 (1896); Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. Thompson, 161 F.3d 449, 457 (7th Cir.1998); Reich v. Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, supra, 4 F.3d at 493; Solis v. Matheson, 563 F.3d 425, 434 (9th Cir. 2009)). Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550 (1974); United States v. Smiskin, 487 F.3d 1260, 1264 (9th Cir.2007); EEOC v. Cherokee Nation, 871 F.2d 937, 938 (10th Cir.1989). Or if there is persuasive evidence that Congress did not intend by its silence that the statute would apply to Indians. Taylor v. Alabama Intertribal Council Title IV J.T.P.A., 261 F.3d 1032, 1035 (11th Cir.2001) (per curiam); United States v. Jackson, 600 F.2d 1283, 1286-87 (9th Cir.1979)

The first and third of these exceptions are inapplicable. The Menominees' sawmill is just a sawmill, a commercial enterprise. And there is no indication in OSHA, or its legislative history, that the statute's silence with regard to Indian tribes meant that Congress intended that OSHA not be applicable to tribes. The second exception, however, which requires considering whether the federal statute would infringe rights granted Indian tribes by other statutes or by treaties, is potentially applicable.

By a series of treaties with the federal government made between 1831 and 1856, a reservation was created for the Menominee Indians in a Wisconsin forest. In 1908 the Bureau of Indian Affairs built a sawmill on the reservation and having done so the Bureau managed it for the benefit of the tribe. But in 1954 Congress terminated federal control over the Menominees' reservation, thus subjecting it to governance by the State of Wisconsin. As part of the termination, the sawmill was transferred to a corporation owned by the tribe. Menominee Termination Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 891 et seq.

The period between 1943 and 1961 has been called the "termination era" by scholars of federal Indian policy. The Menominees were just one of seventy tribes and bands terminated in 1954. Cohen, supra, § 1.06, p. 95. "Under Termination, the federal government pursued a policy of ending its special relationship with Indian tribes and transferring tribal territories to the members individually or as shareholders in state chartered corporations." Bethany R. Berger, "Red: Racism and the American Indian," 56 UCLA L.Rev. 591, 641-42 (2009).

The Menominees...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Tribal Gov't, No. 14–2239.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • June 9, 2015
    ...divested by comprehensive federal regulatory schemes that are silent as to Indian tribes.See, e.g., Menominee Tribal Enters. v. Solis, 601 F.3d 669, 674 (7th Cir.2010) (holding that OSHA applied to tribe's operation of a sawmill and related commercial activities); Fla. Paraplegic Ass'n v. M......
  • Soaring Eagle Casino & Resort v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Nos. 14–2405
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • July 1, 2015
    ...Navajo Forest Products, ” and simply conveyed land for the tribe's exclusive use. Id. Similarly, in Menominee Tribal Enterprises v. Solis, 601 F.3d 669 (7th Cir.2010), the Seventh Circuit again found that a broad treaty right did not exempt a tribal business from the application of a federa......
  • Scalia v. Red Lake Nation Fisheries, Inc., No. 19-3373
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • December 4, 2020
    ...1116 (9th Cir. 1985). See also Reich v. Mashantucket Sand & Gravel , 95 F.3d 174, 178 (2d Cir. 1996) ; Menominee Tribal Enters. v. Solis , 601 F.3d 669, 670-71 (7th Cir. 2010). For a statute of general applicability to apply to Indian self-government, this court looks for either an "explici......
  • Soaring Eagle Casino and Resort, 07-CA-053586
    • United States
    • National Labor Relations Board
    • April 16, 2013
    ...commercial entities on Indian reservations are subject to various Federal laws. See San Manuel I; Menominee Tribal Enterprises v. Solis, 601 F.3d 669, 674 (7th Cir. 2010). It is clear, therefore, that applying the Act to the Tribe's casino operations would not interfere with its rights of s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Tribal Gov't, No. 14–2239.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • June 9, 2015
    ...divested by comprehensive federal regulatory schemes that are silent as to Indian tribes.See, e.g., Menominee Tribal Enters. v. Solis, 601 F.3d 669, 674 (7th Cir.2010) (holding that OSHA applied to tribe's operation of a sawmill and related commercial activities); Fla. Paraplegic Ass'n v. M......
  • Soaring Eagle Casino & Resort v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Nos. 14–2405
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • July 1, 2015
    ...Navajo Forest Products, ” and simply conveyed land for the tribe's exclusive use. Id. Similarly, in Menominee Tribal Enterprises v. Solis, 601 F.3d 669 (7th Cir.2010), the Seventh Circuit again found that a broad treaty right did not exempt a tribal business from the application of a federa......
  • Scalia v. Red Lake Nation Fisheries, Inc., No. 19-3373
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • December 4, 2020
    ...1116 (9th Cir. 1985). See also Reich v. Mashantucket Sand & Gravel , 95 F.3d 174, 178 (2d Cir. 1996) ; Menominee Tribal Enters. v. Solis , 601 F.3d 669, 670-71 (7th Cir. 2010). For a statute of general applicability to apply to Indian self-government, this court looks for either an "explici......
  • Soaring Eagle Casino and Resort, 07-CA-053586
    • United States
    • National Labor Relations Board
    • April 16, 2013
    ...commercial entities on Indian reservations are subject to various Federal laws. See San Manuel I; Menominee Tribal Enterprises v. Solis, 601 F.3d 669, 674 (7th Cir. 2010). It is clear, therefore, that applying the Act to the Tribe's casino operations would not interfere with its rights of s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT