Thomas v. Coquille Indian Tribe, (2004)

• Court: Coquille Indian Tribal Court
• Writing for the Court: DON OWEN COSTELLO CHIEF JUDGE
• Decision Date: 09 March 2004
• Docket Number: C03-001
• Citation: Thomas v. Coquille Indian Tribe (Coquille Indian Tribal Ct. 2004)
• Parties: JOHN THOMAS, AN ENROLLED MEMBER OF THE COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE, PLAINTIFF, v. COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE, DAVE TOVEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE; POLLY LATTA, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGER OF THE COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE; SCOTT LAFEVRE, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF POLICE FOR THE COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE, DEFENDANTS.

JOHN THOMAS, AN ENROLLED MEMBER OF THE COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE, PLAINTIFF, v. COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE, DAVE TOVEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE; POLLY LATTA, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGER OF THE COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE; SCOTT LAFEVRE, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF POLICE FOR THE COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE, DEFENDANTS.

No. C03-001

Coquille Indian Tribal Court

March 9, 2004

OPINION AND ORDER

DON OWEN COSTELLO CHIEF JUDGE

Defendants have moved the court for an order dismissing plaintiff's complaint. Having fully considered the matter, the court grants the motion.

The Complaint

The complaint sets forth four causes of action, substantially as follows.

First cause of Action: Specific Performance

Plaintiff alleges that he is an enrolled member of the Coquille Indian Tribe who resides on the Coquille Indian Reservation defendant Coquille Indian Tribe is a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe; defendant Dave Tovey is the Executive Director of the Tribe; defendant Polly Latta is the Tribe's Human Resource Manager; defendant Scott Lafevre is the Tribe's Chief of Police; defendants Tovey and Latta are responsible for almost all of the hiring decisions for job openings within the Tribe, including those with the Tribe's Police Department; and defendant Lafevre has significant input in hiring decisions for job openings with the Tribe's Police Department.

Plaintiff alleges that on or about December 4, 2002, defendant Latta posted a job opening for a Tribal Police Officer; at that time, the posting was only made available to tribal members and members of their families, and tribal staff; on or about December 12, 2002, Plaintiff submitted his application for the open Tribal Police Officer position; and he met all of the minimum qualifications for the job for which he was applying, and was qualified for the job.

Plaintiff alleges that as an enrolled member of the Tribe, he was an in-house applicant for the purposes of the Tribe's advertising policy for jobs, which states that all qualified in-house applicants shall be considered first; and therefore, no weight should be given to the merits of any non-in-house applicant until after all qualified in-house applicants are first considered.

Plaintiff alleges that he was not considered for the job, and subsequently was not hired; he was the only qualified in-house applicant to apply; and had he been rightfully considered for the job, he would have been hired for the position.

Therefore plaintiff alleges, he is legally entitled to the position and salary of Tribal Police Officer for which he applied.

Second Cause of Action: Breach of Tribal Constitutional Rights

Plaintiff realleges the allegations of the first cause of action and alleges that defendants were not honest and forthright with him during and after the hiring process, and they gave him the following, conflicting reasons as to why he was not hired for the job: (a) plaintiff was not qualified for the position, (b) he was not the most qualified for the position (c) his application had been "red-flagged.", and (d) the Tribe was not going to hire a Tribal Member.

He alleges that as a result of defendants' failure to properly consider him for the job, hire him, and to be honest and forthright with him during and after the hiring process, defendants have denied plaintiff the opportunity to participate in the economic resources and activities of the Tribe, in violation of Article VIII, Section 1, of the Coquille Indian Tribal Constitution.

He alleges that, for the same reasons, defendants have also denied plaintiff equal protection of the laws, and denied him an entitlement without due process of law in violation of Article VI, Section 3 (b) (11), of the Coquille Indian Tribe Constitution.

Plaintiff alleges that, due to the breach of his Constitutional rights, he has suffered extreme embarrassment and emotional distress all to his non-economic damages in the amount of $50,000.00; and, additionally, he was denied a job and salary that he was entitled to, all to his economic damages in an amount equal to the full amount of salary paid to that position since it was filled.

Third Cause of Action: Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Plaintiff realleges the allegations of the first cause of action and alleges that defendants were not honest and forthright with him during and after the hiring process, and they gave him the following, conflicting reasons as to why he was not hired for the job: (a) plaintiff was not qualified for the position, (b) he was not the most qualified for the position, (c) his application had been "red-flagged.", and (d) the Tribe was not going to hire a Tribal Member.

He alleges that defendants extend to plaintiff, as an enrolled member of the Tribe, a fiduciary duty to preserve and protect his interests when those interests are the same as the interests of the Tribe; he had an interest in being properly considered for the job of Tribal Police Officer, in getting that job, and with being treated in an honest and forthright manner during and after the hiring process, and Tribe's interests were the same as his.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants have breached their fiduciary duties owed to him; and as a result, plaintiff has suffered severe embarrassment and emotional distress, all to his non-economic damages in the amount of $50,000.00. He alleges additionally that he was denied a job and salary rightfully his, all to his economic damages in an amount equal to the full amount of salary paid to the positionsince it was filled.

Fourth Cause of Action:Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968

Plaintiff realleges the allegations of the first cause of action and alleges in addition that defendants were not honest and forthright with him during and after the hiring process, and they gave him the following, conflicting reasons as to why he was not hired for the job: (a) plaintiff was not qualified for the position, (b) he was not the most qualified for the position, (c) his application had been "red-flagged.", and (d) the Tribe was not going to hire a Tribal Member.

He alleges that as a result of defendants' failure to properly consider him for the job, hire him, and to be honest and forthright with him during and after the hiring process, defendants have denied plaintiff the opportunity to participate in the economic resources and activities of the Tribe, in violation of Article VIII, Section 1, of the Coquille Indian Tribal Constitution.

He alleges that, for the same reasons, defendants have also denied him equal protection of the laws, and denied him an entitlement without due process of law in violation of Article VI, Section 3 (b) (11) of the Coquille Indian Tribe Constitution.

Plaintiff alleges that by denying him equal protection of the laws, and denying him an entitlement withoutdue process of law, defendants Tovey, Latta, and Lafevre have violated the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25~USC Sec. 1302(8).

He alleges that as a result of the violationof the Indian Civil Rights Act by defendants Tovey, Lattaand Lafevre, he has suffered severe embarrassment and emotional distress all to his non-economic damages in the amount of $50,000.00; and, additionally, was denied a job and salary that he was entitled to, all to his economic damages in an amount equal to the full amount of salary paid to the position since it was filled.

Prayer

Plaintiff seeks judgment against defendants (a) directing them to vacate the position of Tribal Police Officer that was open on December 4, 2002, and further to hire plaintiff to fill that position with all the salary and benefits he would receive had he been hired through normal procedures; (b) awarding plaintiff non-economic damages in the amount of $50,000.00; (c) awarding Plaintiff economic damages in the amount equal to the total amount of salary paid to the position of Tribal Police Officer described since it was filled; and (d) awarding Plaintiff any other equitable relief the Court finds just and proper.

Defendants' Motion

Defendants move to dismiss the complaint on three grounds: (1) the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matter alleged in the complaint; (2) plaintiff has failed to cite a tribal ordinance or tribal court case law which supports his claim for relief; and (3) plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

DISCUSSION

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

In deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to CITC 620.120 (12) (1), the court construes the "pleadings liberally with a view of substantial justice between the parties" as required by CITC 620. 120 (4) (a). Dawson v Springer, C02-001 (Coquille Indian Tribal Court, June 26, 2003). The court will dismiss the action if it appears that the court lacks jurisdiction over the matter. CITC 620.120 (12) (g) (4).

Article VII, Section 4 of the Coquille Tribal Constitution provides:

POWERS. The tribal court and such inferior courts as the tribal council may from time to time ordain and establish shall be empowered to exercise all judicial authority of the tribe.

The judicial power of the tribal court shall extend to all cases and matters in law and equity arising under this constitution, the laws and ordinances of or applicable to the Coquille Indian Tribe and the customs of the Coquille Indian Tribe.

Provided that until such time as the tribal court is established, the judicial authority of the Coquille Indian Tribe shall vest in the tribal council.

The Coquille Indians thus ordained that upon creation of the tribal court, the Tribe's full judicial authority would move from the tribal council to the tribal court. That...