Dilliner v. Seneca-Cayuga Tribe
2011 OK 61
| Okla. | 2011Background
- Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma sought to dismiss based on tribal sovereign immunity in a suit by tribal employees for unpaid wages under three-year contracts.
- Contracts dated July 26, 2007, between the Tribe and tribal employees, with identical terms and a termination-provision for continued salary through the term.
- Section 9 of the contracts contains an express limited waiver of sovereign immunity for uncontested suits.
- Resolution #XX-XXXXXX (July 26, 2007) authorized Chief Spicer to sign three-year employment contracts; poll vote approved 5–0 with 2 unavailable.
- Resolution #XX-XXXXXX (August 14, 2007) purported to ratify the authorization, reciting that it ratified the earlier action, not the contracts themselves.
- Trial court found waiver of sovereign immunity, and the Tribe’s motion to dismiss was denied; the Tribe appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether waiver of sovereign immunity was express and unequivocal | Dilliner argues contracts' waiver clause and ratification express waiver | Tribe contends no express waiver or ratification by Board/Business Committee | No express and unequivocal waiver; immunity not waived |
| Whether resolutions ratified the contracts or merely authorized signing | Resolutions ratified the contracts and waived immunity | Resolutions did not ratify contracts; only authorized signing | No ratification of contracts; immunity not waived |
| Whether tribal law governs waiver and supports jurisdictional dismissal | Waiver per tribal law; contracts valid | No express tribal-law waiver; resolutions invalid or non-ratifying | Tribal law requires express waiver; no valid waiver found |
| Whether the Chief’s authority to sign contracts suffices to waive immunity | Authority to sign implies waiver | Authority to sign does not equal waiver without explicit consent | Chief’s authority alone does not waive immunity |
| Whether equitable or implied waiver applies to defeat immunity | Equitable estoppel or implied waiver justified | Equitable estoppel cannot create waiver absent express consent | Equitable estoppel cannot waive immunity; requires express waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (U.S. 1978) (waiver of immunity must be unequivocally expressed)
- Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (U.S. 1998) (scope of tribal sovereign immunity and waiver standards)
- Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of Washington, 433 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1977) (tribal jurisdiction and immunity principles)
- Native American Distributing v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Company, 546 F.3d 1288 (10th Cir. 2008) (tribal-law influence on governmental vs. enterprise status and immunity)
- Sanderlin v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 243 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2001) (requiring explicit tribal consent for waivers of immunity)
- Memphis Biofuels, LLC v. Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc., 585 F.3d 917 (6th Cir. 2009) (board approval required to waive immunity under tribal charter)
- C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 532 U.S. 411 (U.S. 2001) (arbitration clause and governing law can imply waiver of immunity)