Facts
- Peabody Western Coal Company operated coal mines on land leased from the Navajo Nation pursuant to lease terms prepared and approved by the Secretary of the Interior.
- The leases required Peabody to give an employment preference to members of the Navajo Nation at the mines.
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought a Title VII action against Peabody seeking injunctive and monetary relief, alleging the Navajo-member preference unlawfully discriminated against non-Navajo Native American applicants and employees.
- Peabody and the Navajo Nation moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, arguing that the Secretary of the Interior was a required and indispensable party because the challenged preference was embedded in federally administered lease terms.
- The district court concluded that the relevant federal interests could not be fairly adjudicated without the Secretary and dismissed the action for failure to join an indispensable party.
- The EEOC appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit.
Issues
- Did the district court err in dismissing the EEOC’s Title VII suit under Rule 19 for failure to join an indispensable party?
- When a required party includes an Indian tribe connected to the challenged contract terms, may the court proceed by ordering the United States to sue (or join) the tribe under Rule 19(a)(2), notwithstanding tribal sovereign immunity?
- What is the proper course on remand if the United States declines to sue or join the tribe within a reasonable time?
Decision
- The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded.
- The court held that the case should not have been dismissed at the outset because there was an available mechanism to cure the joinder problem: the district court must order the United States to sue the Navajo Nation under Rule 19(a)(2) so the case can proceed with the necessary party joined.
- The court explained that tribal sovereign immunity does not bar a suit brought by the United States; therefore, joinder through a suit by the United States is a permissible way to bring the tribe into the litigation.
- The court directed the district court to allow the United States a reasonable time to decide whether to sue the Navajo Nation; if the United States declines, the district court must then address the Rule 19(b) factors, and dismissal would likely be favored, but that determination was left for remand.
Legal Principles
- A party is “required” under Rule 19(a) when complete relief cannot be accorded among existing parties or when the absent party claims an interest that may be impaired or may expose existing parties to inconsistent obligations.
- If a required party cannot be joined, Rule 19(b) requires the court to decide whether the action should proceed “in equity and good conscience” or be dismissed, considering prejudice and the adequacy of relief.
- Tribal sovereign immunity bars many suits against tribes, but it does not bar suits brought by the United States; the federal government may sue an Indian tribe.
- Rule 19(a)(2) permits a court to order joinder of a person who should be joined as a plaintiff; if that person refuses, the court may align the person as a defendant or, in a proper case, as an involuntary plaintiff.
- Dismissal is disfavored when a practical joinder path exists that permits adjudication while respecting immunity limits; the court should attempt joinder before ending the case.
Conclusion
The Ninth Circuit vacated the Rule 19 dismissal and remanded, holding that the district court must give the United States a reasonable opportunity to sue the Navajo Nation so the tribe can be joined and the EEOC’s Title VII claims can be litigated; only if the United States declines should the district court then evaluate whether the action must be dismissed under Rule 19(b).