Christine J. Williams v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18717
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Christine J. Williams was the laboratory manager/chief medical technologist for the Poarch Band of Creek Indians Health Department for over 21 years and alleged termination based on age ("over 55") with a younger replacement.
- Williams sued in federal court under the ADEA (29 U.S.C. §§ 621–634). The Poarch Band moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on tribal sovereign immunity.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal; the district court adopted that recommendation and dismissed the ADEA claim. Williams appealed.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviews 12(b)(1) jurisdictional dismissals de novo and factual findings for clear error; plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction.
- The core legal question was whether Congress abrogated tribal sovereign immunity when it enacted the ADEA or whether the Poarch Band waived immunity.
- The court found no tribe waiver and concluded the ADEA does not unequivocally abrogate tribal immunity; therefore federal courts lack jurisdiction over Williams’ ADEA suit against the Poarch Band.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Congress abrogated tribal sovereign immunity in the ADEA | Omission of the phrase "Indian tribe" from ADEA's employer definition (versus Title VII) indicates Congress intended to subject tribes to ADEA suits (citing Fitzpatrick) | ADEA contains no clear, unequivocal language abrogating tribal immunity; tribe retains sovereign immunity absent clear congressional statement or waiver | Held: No abrogation; omission is ambiguous and insufficient to abrogate tribal immunity |
| Whether ADEA as a generally applicable statute permits suit against tribes | A general statute covering employers implies tribes are covered when text is silent | Even if statute generally applies to tribes, sovereign immunity still bars private suits unless Congress unmistakably abrogated or tribe waived | Held: General applicability does not supply a waiver of immunity; immunity bars suit |
| Whether Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer supports plaintiff's position | Fitzpatrick shows Congress can abrogate sovereign immunity by amending statutory definitions (so deletion/inclusion matters) | Fitzpatrick involved states and constitutional enforcement under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment — not tribal immunity; different legal framework | Held: Fitzpatrick is inapposite; it does not support abrogation of tribal immunity under the ADEA |
| Whether other circuits or precedents support abrogation | Plaintiff argued contrary circuit decisions had dissenting views | Multiple circuits held ADEA does not abrogate tribal immunity; ambiguity resolved in favor of tribal sovereignty | Held: Circuit authority and Supreme Court canons require clear statement; other circuits agree no abrogation under ADEA |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiowa Tribe v. Manufacturing Techs., 523 U.S. 751 (tribal immunity applies unless Congress authorizes suit or tribe waives)
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (tribes possess common-law immunity from suit)
- Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505 (Congress may abrogate tribal immunity but must do so clearly)
- Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (Congress can subject states to suit under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment; not dispositive for tribal abrogation)
- Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (Congress must make unmistakably clear its intent to abrogate sovereign immunity)
- C & L Enters., Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 532 U.S. 411 (waiver and abrogation standards for tribal immunity require clarity)
- Freemanville Water Sys. v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians, 563 F.3d 1205 (11th Cir.) (ambiguity is enemy of abrogation; clarity required)
- Florida Paraplegic Ass’n v. Miccosukee Tribe, 166 F.3d 1126 (general federal statutes may apply to tribes, but immunity can bar suits absent clear abrogation)
- E.E.O.C. v. Cherokee Nation, 871 F.2d 937 (10th Cir.) (ambiguities resolved to benefit tribes)
- Garcia v. Akwesasne Hous. Auth., 268 F.3d 76 (2d Cir.) (ADEA does not abrogate tribal immunity)