2 NICS App. 115, Badgley v. Hoopa Forest Industries (Dec. 1990)
IN THE HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
HOOPA VALLEY INDIAN RESERVATION
HOOPA, CALIFORNIA
Louise Badgley v. Hoopa Forest Industries and Hoopa Valley Development Enterprise
No. A-90-001 (Dec. 28, 1990)
SUMMARY
Hoopa Valley Tribe member Badgley owned a logging truck which was operated by her non-Indian husband. In the summer and fall of 1990, Hoopa Forest Industries (HFI) hired truckers to provide log-hauling services for two timber sale contracts. Badgley's husband, however, was not one of those initially hired. Badgley sued both HFI and another tribal business organization, the Hoopa Valley Development Enterprise, claiming that she and her husband were the victims of discrimination. The Hoopa Valley Tribal Court ruled in favor of the two tribal business organizations.
The Tribal Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. It found that those truckers initially hired by HFI to work on the two timber sales had indicated their interest in the job by previously submitting log-hauling bids. Badgley and her husband, in contrast, had not submitted bids. As further evidence of a lack of discrimination, the court noted that when Badgley's husband applied for work on one of the jobs, he was immediately hired. Finally, the court observed, Badgley failed to show that she and her husband suffered any damage as a result of the alleged discrimination.
FULL TEXT
|
Attorney P. Timothy Murphy for the Hoopa Tribe; appellant Louise Badgley appeared pro se. |
2 NICS App. 115, Badgley v. Hoopa Forest Industries (Dec. 1990) p. 116
OPINION AND ORDER
COOCHISE, Chief Justice:
This appeal concerns the issue of whether the respondent's failure to hire the appellant's non-Indian husband as a log-hauler was discriminatory and in violation of tribal law. In addition, the appellant asserts that the Indian preference provisions of the Tribal Employment Rights Ordinances (TERO) violate equal protection laws because they discriminate against tribal member truck owners whose trucks are operated by non-Indian drivers.
FACTS
The appellant is an enrolled member of the Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe. She owns a logging truck which is operated by her non-Indian husband. In June, 1989, respondent Hoopa Forest Industries (HFI) advertised that it wished to hire truckers under subcontract to provide log-hauling services for timber harvested in conjunction with the "Hopkins Creek I" timber sale. The appellant received a bid form but did not submit a bid as she could not economically comply with the advertised terms of the subcontract. As it turned out, the successful bidder could not comply with the advertised terms either. However, HFI was willing to revise the subcontract terms in order to accommodate him.
HFI subsequently hired additional truckers to assist the successful bidder in hauling logs from the "Hopkins Creek I" timber sale. Some of the truckers hired had a less favorable Indian preference ranking than the appellant. In answer to the question why it had not offered appellant one of these additional jobs, HFI explained that it had contacted only those truckers who had previously submitted bids, as it knew these truckers wanted the work. Corroborating HFI's explanation, the record shows that as soon as the appellant's husband let it be known that he wished to work as a log-hauler on the ''Hopkins Creek I" sale, he was immediately hired.
Both appellant and respondent agreed that the appellant did not bid on the "Hostler P" timber sale, which occurred in September, 1989. The record shows that appellant's husband was working outside the local area as the operator of appellant's logging truck at the time of the "Hostler P" sale. Indeed, appellant's husband was quoted as having bragged about making more money on this outside job than he could have made working on the ''Hostler P"' job.
CONCLUSIONS
The appellate panel, having heard the oral arguments of the parties, read all court documents, considered all exhibits introduced into evidence and reviewed all pertinent documents relating to the case, now makes the following conclusions.
2 NICS App. 115, Badgley v. Hoopa Forest Industries (Dec. 1990) p. 117
We find that the evidence does not support appellant's claim that she had given HFI notice of her desire to work on the two timber sales. It is true that the appellant applied for work with respondent Hoopa Valley Development Corporation on April 12, 1989. This application, however, was not related to the two timber sales at issue before the Tribal Court. The application procedure for sub-contracting timber work is through the bid system. Truckers submit bids to indicate their interest in the work. HFI then hires truckers from that pool. The appellant failed to submit a bid to participate in either the ''Hopkins Creek I" or the "Hostler P"' timber sales, and therefore was not in the pool of interested candidates.
The appellant failed to establish that she was treated differently from other persons similarly situated on account of her marital status to a non-Indian, her race, sex or any other category. The evidence indicates that she was not similarly situated to the log-haulers who were hired by HFI before her because, unlike those truckers, she had not submitted a bid indicating her interest in the work. As soon as the appellant's husband contacted the prime carrier and expressed a desire to work on the "Hopkins Creek I" sale, he was hired. We find that HFI's act of hiring appellant's husband/operator after learning of his availability and interest in working is further evidence of lack of discrimination.
As previously noted, it is undisputed that the appellant did not submit a bid for log-hauling on the "Hostler P" timber sale. At the time of that sale the appellant's husband was employed with her truck outside the local area, rendering him unavailable. Therefore, the appellant has failed to establish any injuries in respect to this latter sale for which she might be entitled to relief.
In summation, the appellant failed to establish by the evidence her claim that she was out of work for a full month because of alleged improprieties on the part of the respondents. She has also failed to substantiate her claim for money damages. Therefore, even if she could have established liability she could not recover damages.
The respondents' attorney, Mr. P. Timothy Murphy, withdrew their cross appeal at the time of oral arguments before the appellate panel.
An interpretation of TERO was not necessary to determine the rights and obligations of the parties in this action. Any failure to comply with TERO guidelines in the future may result in actions being brought pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Ordinances and the Due Process and Equal Protection provisions of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. §1302.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the judgment of the Hoopa Tribal Court be affirmed, and that each party pay its own expenses and attorney fees, as well as any costs incurred in this appeal.