Sexual Harassment and Indian Casinos: Does Any Law Apply?

Fascinating article in Salon.com by Peter Byrne about a case concerning sexual harassment and other allegations by a group of women working at a tribal casino:

In a civil lawsuit filed in 2005 [Medina v. Station Casinos] with the Placer County Superior Court [California], [the]  women -- all former employees of Thunder Valley Casino -- allege gender and age discrimination, sexual harassment, wrongful termination, and violation of state and federal labor codes by casino management. A casino hostess, Sundi Lyons, claims she was raped by one of the Thunder Valley managers.

The article explores the relationship between federal and state antidiscrimination laws and the unique status of Indian nations as "domestic dependent nations." Generally, as part of a sovereign nation, Indian nations are exempt from much civil U.S. law and specifically, "Congress has ... exempted tribes from many state and federal regulations, including labor and antidiscrimination laws . . . . The idea behind [these] measures was to stimulate economic development on impoverished reservations."

Most recently, the women's lawsuit was dismissed by a state trial judge on sovereignty grounds, but the women's attorney plan to appeal to the California appellate court

Some excerpts from the article, "Taking on a nation":

When the stately doors of Thunder Valley Casino [Sacramento, Ca.] first swung open, says Elizabeth Ward, an energetic mother of two, working there was "all fun and games." Ward put in 10-hour days as the casino's beverage supervisor.

***********************************************
One of Ward's jobs was to oversee the girls on the casino floor, which involved getting them fitted in black go-go boots with 2-inch soles and 4-inch heels, faux-leather black halters, and short-shorts with a metal ring hanging off an oversize zipper.

********************************************
The [EEOC] gave them the right to sue, but also told them it had no jurisdiction to investigate their claims themselves, because the casino is on Indian land, which is sovereign territory. Regina Brown, speaking for the [California] state agency, says pretty much the same thing . . . . California Department of Justice spokesperson Nathan Barankin explains that only the governor has the authority to initiate an investigation into whether sovereign Indian nations are violating the civil rights of employees.

********************************************
Attorney Howard Dickstein, the sole spokesman for Thunder Valley and the tribe on the lawsuit, says the tribe has its own anti-discrimination policies. “Casino policy prohibits sexual discrimination and harassment consistent with state laws," he says. While the tribe "is not subject to the same process as private employers," the tribe had an internal procedure for dealing with employee complaints, which he claims the women were aware of but did not follow.

The women claim, however, that they did follow the appropriate procedures but got nowhere.

This article and case raise some tough issues. On the one hand, Indian tribes certainly should have their national sovereignty protected and, of course, the United States does not go around forcing other sovereigns to abide by its employment discrimination laws.

But the attorney for the aggrieved women made some persuasive arguments, though ultimately not prevailing, to the trial court this past November.  First, because the tribe failed to protect the women's civil rights, should the tribe's sovereign immunity be trumped by the equal rights provided to all people by the constitutions of California and the United States?  Second, did the State of California ever intend for tribes to be able to use the tool of sovereignty to take away the civil rights of others? And third, and finally, is it not especially wrong to let a tribe's business partners hide behind Indian sovereignty?

PS