6 NICS App. 210, TULALIP HOUSING AUTHORITY v. MEDINA (November 2004)
IN THE TULALIP TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
TULALIP INDIAN RESERVATION
TULALIP, WASHINGTON
The Tulalip Housing Authority, Appellant,
v.
Avel Medina, Sr., Appellee.
No. TUL-CR-ET-2004-0211 (November 29, 2004)
SYLLABUS*
Trial court, sitting as Employment Court, reversed a decision of the Housing Authority suspending an employee for a major offense under the Tribe’s Human Resources Ordinance. Court of Appeals holds 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; Edythe Chenois, Justice; Elizabeth F.M. Nason, Justice.
Appearances: Sam Stiltner for Tulalip Housing Authority. Avel Medina, Sr., pro se.
OPINION
SUMMARY
This matter came before the Tulalip Court of Appeals pursuant to a Notice of Appeal filed July 9, 2004, by Appellant, Tulalip Housing Authority (hereinafter referred to as "THA"). Appellant, THA, is appealing an Order dated July 1, 2004 by the Tulalip Tribal Court.
The facts and records presented to the court provide that Appellee Avel Medina Sr., is an employee of the THA. On or about June 15, 2004, Mr. Medina received a Notice of Suspension for the dates of June 15, 2004 to July 6, 2004 pursuant to violations of Title IXD 2, u, v, x, y & ab of the Tulalip Tribes Human Resources Ordinance (hereinafter "HRO"). The basis for the suspension was that on May 21, 2004, while Mr. Medina was serving as Acting Manager for the THA Office, he had used his authority to attain unauthorized approval and disbursement for $12,900.00 from his MEPA account. Violations of these sections are classified as "major
6 NICS App. 210, TULALIP HOUSING AUTHORITY v. MEDINA (November 2004) p. 211
offenses" and may be punished by either suspension or termination pursuant to §X.A(1) of the HRO.
Mr. Medina filed a timely appeal, which was tried by the Tulalip Employment Court on June 30, 2004. The trial court determined that Mr. Medina violated HRO 84§IX.D.(1)(m) which constitutes "acting outside the chain of command", a minor offense, and ordered that a warning be placed in Mr. Medina's file and that he receive back pay and restoration of any lost benefits. Appellant contended that the trial court did not find that the supervisor had not followed HR 84. THA filed a timely appeal and oral arguments were scheduled.
DISCUSSION
This Court had determined a precedential case, which is similar to the case at hand, on October 7, 2004 in the Tulalip Housing Authority v. Jolene D. Bill, Tulalip Tribal Court of Appeals, entered October 11, 2004. The Court will follow the determinations rendered in the Bill case in rendering its decision in the present matter.
The Bill case established that when a major offense hat been committed, the employee's supervisor has the authority to suspend or dismiss the employee. HRO 84§X.A.(3)(b). The Ordinance also explicitly provides that the supervisor's decision must be upheld if the supervisor followed HRO 84 (emphasis added). HRO§84 X(B)(9). HRO 84 does not authorize the trial court to substitute its decision for the decision of the supervisor if the supervisor followed HR 84.
In following the decision in the Bill case this Court also finds that because there was no allegation or evidence presented to the trial court that the process required by HR 84 was not followed, the Employment Court was required to uphold the suspension imposed by his supervisor. Thus, the Employment Court's decision in this matter is hereby reversed and the suspension is upheld.
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.