In this case we are called upon to decide whether an Indian tribe’s agreement to comply with the provisions оf Title VII effects a waiver of the tribe’s sovereign immunity from suit.
Robert Nanomantube filed this employment discrimination action against his former employer, the Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas, as well as the Tribe’s governing body and the unincorporatеd tribal casino at which Mr. Nanomantube had served as the acting general manager. The district court dismissed the casе for lack of jurisdiction based on tribal sovereign immunity, and this appeal followed. We review de novo the district court’s decision to dismiss the case and its ruling on sovereign immunity.
See E.F.W. v. St. Stephen’s Indian High Sch.,
“Indian tribes are neither states, nor part of the federal government, nor subdivisions of either. Rather, they are sovereign political entities possessed of
*1152
sovereign authority not derivеd from the United States, which they predate.”
NLRB v. Pueblo of San Juan,
Mr. Nanomantube first suggests we should find the Tribe subject to suit because his Title VII claims do not implicate the tribal self-government concerns thаt inform the question of a tribe’s regulatory or adjudicative authority over nonmembers of the tribe.
See Montana v. United States,
It is clear that Congress did not abrogate tribal immunity with regard to Title VII. Indeed, rather than expressing any intention to abrogate tribal immunity, Congress specifically exempted Indian tribes from the definition of “employers” subject to Title VII’s requirements. See 42 Ü.S.C. § 2000e(b). 1 Thus, the Tribe’s sovereign immunity from suit remаins intact unless the Tribe has clearly and unequivocally waived its sovereign immunity with respect to Title VII claims.
Mr. Nanomantube аrgues that the Tribe waived its sovereign immunity through a single sentence contained in the casino’s employee handbook. Specifically, the handbook states: “The Golden Eagle Casino will comply with the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991, and the Tribal Employment Rights Ordinance of the Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas.” (Appellant’s App. at 23.) Mr. Nanomantube notеs that Title VII includes jurisdictional and enforcement provisions, and he argues that the Tribe, by agreeing to comply with the provisions of Title VII, thus unequivocally consented to be subject to enforcement proceedings brought in federal оr state courts. For support, he relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in
C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma,
We are not persuаded that a tribe’s agreement to comply with Title VII, without more, constitutes an unequivocal waiver of tribal sovereign immunity. In contrast to the
C & L
contract or the
Native American Distributing
charter, the Tribe’s handbook in this case contained no reference to tribunals at which disputes сould be resolved or legal remedies enforced.
Cf. C & L,
We thus hold that the Tribe’s agreement to comply with Title VII, like similar agreements to comply with other federal statutes, may “convey a promise not to discriminate,” but it “in no way constitute[s] an express and unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity and consent to be sued in federal court.”
Sanderlin v. Seminole Tribe of Fla.,
Becаuse the Tribe’s sovereign immunity from Title VII suits has been neither abrogated by Congress nor waived by the Tribe, the district court correctly dismissed Mr. Nanomantube’s Title VII complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The court’s judgment is accordingly AFFIRMED.
Notes
. Because we affirm the dismissal of the case on sovereign immunity grounds, we need not and do not address the question of how this definitional exclusion might affect the merits of Mr. Nanomantube’s Title VII claim.