This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Retaliation
Wrongful Termination

Carolina Manzano v. Southern Indian Health Council, Inc. et al.

Published: Aug. 6, 2021 | Result Date: Jul. 7, 2021 | Filing Date: Oct. 30, 2020 |

Case number: 3:20-cv-02130-BAS-BGS Bench Decision –  Defendant

Judge

Cynthia A. Bashant

Court

USDC Southern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Dennis N. Brady
(San Diego Employment Law Group)


Defendant

Tyler M. Paetkau
(Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP)


Facts

The Southern Indian Health Council, Inc. was formed by seven Native American tribes to provide health care to American Indians and other residents of its service area. SIHC provided health services "for many years under self-determination contracts with the Indian Health Services" a federal agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, which recognized SIHC "as a tribally operated service unit." Carola Manzano brought an action alleging harassment and wrongful termination while she was employed by SIHC. SIHC moved to dismiss the action on the basis that SIHC is entitled to sovereign immunity.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that she was harassed and wrongfully terminated by her former employer, SIHC. Plaintiff contended that defendant untimely filed the Compact of Self-Governance, a document concerning facts essential to the issue of SIHC's sovereign immunity, because it was not filed with defendant's moving papers but with its reply brief. Plaintiff also contended the Compact is not relevant to establish sovereign immunity nor it was properly authenticated. Plaintiff contended that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply to defendant because it is merely a tribal organization, not a tribe.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all of the contentions. Defendant contended that it is entitled to sovereign immunity because tribal sovereign immunity applies to tribal organizations such as theirs. Defendant contended it is entitled to tribal sovereign immunity because it is an arm of the tribe and has operated and provided services on tribal land. Defendant contended that it is also entitled to tribal sovereign immunity because the IHS transferred power on the basis of autonomy and self-governance. Furthermore, defendant contended that the Compact is clear that SIHC intended to share in tribal immunity. Defendant contended that it has a financial relationship between their organization and the member tribes that it associates with.

Result

Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was granted.


#137476

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390