TULALIP HOUSING AUTHORITY v. BILL

6 NICS App. 177, TULALIP HOUSING AUTHORITY v. BILL (October 2004)

IN THE TULALIP TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

TULALIP INDIAN RESERVATION

TULALIP, WASHINGTON

The Tulalip Housing Authority, Appellant,

Jolene D. Bill, Appellee.

No. TUL-CV-ET-2004-0083 (October 11, 2004)

SYLLABUS^*

Trial court, sitting as Employment Court, set aside the termination of an employee for major offenses on the ground that the Tribal code requires progressive discipline. Court of Appeals holds (1) tribal code allows termination for major offenses; (2) trial court found that two major offenses had been committed; and (3) trial court lacks the discretion to disturb an administrative decision regarding employee discipline where the administrator has followed the procedural requirements set forth in the tribal code. Trial court order reversed.

Before: Jane Smith, Chief Justice; Robert Anderson, Justice; Edythe Chenois, Justice.

Appearances: Sam Stiltner for THA.

OPINION

SUMMARY

Appellee Jolene Bill was employed by the Tulalip Housing Authority (THA). She was dismissed from her position for several major violations of the Tulalip Tribes Human Resources Ordinance. Dismissal Notice (Feb. 25, 2004). The Dismissal Notice alleged that the conduct violated Tulalip Human Resources Ordinance (Ordinance 84) §§ IX.D.2 (d), (h), (v) and (aa) and was approved by the appropriate supervisor. Violations of these sections are classified as “major offenses” and may be punished by dismissal. Ordinance § 84.IX.C.4. An appeal to the Tribal Employment Court was taken by Ms. Bill. The Court reversed the Notice of Dismissal and ordered THA to suspend Ms. Bill for five days, with back pay to be awarded for the period from March 8, 2004 to April 1, 2004. Employment Court Judgment (April 8, 2004). The Employment Court set aside the suspension on the ground that the “Tula1ip Tribes require progressive discipline.” Employment Court Order, at IV.2. The Employment Court determined

6 NICS App. 177, TULALIP HOUSING AUTHORITY v. BILL (October 2004) p. 178

that there were two major violations of Ordinance 84 committed by Ms. Bill. Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law §§ 2.3 and 2.4 (April 8, 2004). THA filed a timely appeal and oral argument was held. Ms. Bill did not appear at oral argument.

DISCUSSION

When a major offense has been committed, the employee’s supervisor has the authority to suspend or dismiss the employee. Ordinance 84.X.A.3.b. The Employment Court found that two major offenses had been committed by Ms. Bill. Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law §§ 2.3 and 2.4 (April 8, 2004). Ordinance 84 explicitly provides that “if the supervisor or administrator is found to have followed this Ordinance 84 ... the decision of the supervisor or administrator shall be upheld.” Ordinance 84.X.B.9. Since there is no allegation or evidence that the process required by Ordinance 84 was not followed, the Employment Court was required to uphold the administrative action dismissing Ms. Bill. The Employment Court's decision in this matter is hereby reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The syllabus is not a part of the Court's Opinion. The syllabus is a summary of the Opinion prepared by the publishers of this Reporter only for the convenience of the reader. Therefore, the syllabus should not be cited in whole or part as legal authority. Only the Opinion, which follows the syllabus, may be cited as legal authority.