Somerlott v. Cherokee Nation Distributors, Inc.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15596
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Somerlott, a chiropractic technician, was terminated from a clinic at Reynolds Army Community Hospital in Fort Sill, Oklahoma.
- Her employer CND, LLC, a Oklahoma LLC, provided staff to the Army Hospital under a DoD contract and is wholly owned by Cherokee Nation Businesses, Inc. (CNB).
- CNB is a tribal corporation owned by the Cherokee Nation, a federally recognized tribe.
- CND was originally Cherokee Nation Distributors, Inc. (CNDI); it became CND, LLC in 2004 and was later acquired by CNB in 2008.
- Somerlott sued in 2008 alleging Title VII and ADEA violations; the district court dismissed based on tribal sovereign immunity after limited discovery.
- This appeal addresses whether CND shares in tribal immunity given its state-law incorporation and organizational structure, and whether CND is exempt from the ADEA and Title VII, with rulings based on preservation and Rule 59(e) issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CND, LLC shares in tribal sovereign immunity. | Somerlott argues CND's state-law LLC status renders immunity inapplicable. | CND relies on subordinate economic entity theory to extend immunity. | CND does not share immunity; Oklahoma LLC status controls. |
| Whether CND is exempt from the ADEA as an arm of the tribe. | Somerlott asserts ADEA exemption applies to tribal entities like CND. | CND argues exemption applies to intramural tribal governance, not to non-Indian service operations. | ADEA exemption does not apply to CND. |
| Whether the district court properly handled discovery and a Rule 59(e) motion. | Somerlott contends discovery was unfinished and the denial of relief was improper. | CND argues the district court acted within discretion and correctly denied relief. | Rule 59(e) relief affirmed; discovery timing and extensions within court’s discretion. |
| Whether Somerlott properly preserved sovereign-immunity arguments in district court. | Somerlott maintained immunity arguments at least in part before the district court. | The district court did not rely on those arguments; preservation deficient. | Issue not preserved for reversal; plain-error review applies if raised on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998) (tribal immunity extends to subdivisions and is not conditioned on location or direct liability)
- Breakthrough Management Group, Inc. v. Chukchansi Gold Casino & Resort, 629 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2010) (six-factor test for closeness of relationship to tribe (subordinate economic entity))
- Native Am. Distrib. v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Co., 546 F.3d 1288 (10th Cir. 2008) (tribal business immunity context)
- Radin v. St. Regis Mohawk Educ. & Comm. Fund, Inc., 86 N.Y.2d 553, 635 N.Y.S.2d 116, 658 N.E.2d 989 (1995) (solitary precedent cited for immunity under unusual circumstances)
- Panama R.R. Co. v. Curran, 256 F. 768 (5th Cir.1919) (foreign or federal entities incorporated under another sovereign’s law treated as separate)