5 NICS App. 15, WILLIAMS v. TULALIP CASINO (September 1997)

IN THE TULALIP TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

TULALIP INDIAN RESERVATION

MARYSVILLE, WASHINGTON

Steven Williams, Appellant,

v.

Tulalip Casino, Respondent.

No. TUL-Emp-4/97-760 (September 17, 1997)

SUMMARY

Appellant appeals a decision of the Tribal Employment Court suspending him from employment with the Tulalip Casino for violation of HRO 84, Chapter IX(D)(2)(k) and (2)(1), “Fighting on the Job” and “Attempting to Threaten or Intimidate Another Person While on the Job,” respectively. After viewing testimony that the Appellant pushed back and wanted to meet after work, the Court of Appeals finds that the trial court’s ruling was supported by substantial evidence and is not arbitrary and capricious.

FULL TEXT

Before:            Christopher P. Williams, Chief Justice; Rose E. Purser, Justice; Thomas W. Weissmuller, Justice.

This matter came before the Tulalip Tribal Court of Appeals on August 1, 1997, pursuant to Steven Williams’ Notice of Appeal filed on May 30, 1997. Appellant appeals the May 21, 1997, decision of the Tribal Employment Court affirming Appellant’s suspension from employment with the Tulalip Casino.

No new evidence was admitted on the record. This Court will review whether the trial court was arbitrary or capricious and whether there was substantial evidence in the record to support the trial judge’s opinion.

Appellant was suspended for violation of HRO 84, Chapter IX(D)(2)(k), Fighting on the Job and 2(1), Attempting to Threaten or Intimidate Another Person While on the Job.

Reviewing the record, the Court finds that there is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s verdict.

Ms. Jira testified that both parties were pushing each other. Tyler Haynes indicated that Mr. Williams not only pushed back but wanted to meet after work. Mr. Williams indicated to the Court,

5 NICS App. 15, WILLIAMS v. TULALIP CASINO (September 1997) p. 16

through questioning by Justice Weissmuller, that by reviewing the record a court could not find substantial evidence that he was liable as delineated by the Employment Court.

The court record, on page 15, lines 6 through 15, indicate that Mr. Williams wanted to fight in a different location.

This Court, therefore, finds that the trial court’s judgment is not arbitrary and capricious and is supported by substantial evidence. The trial court’s judgment is hereby affirmed.