Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): we hold that Defendant’s employee handbook does not constitute an implied waiver of sovereign immunity. Participation in New Mexico’s Workers’ Compensation Program {17} Plaintiff urges the Court to hold that Defendant’s voluntary participation in New Mexico’s workers’ compensation program serves as a waiver of immunity. Plaintiff makes this argument without citing to any authority or providing any substantive argument in support of her contention. {18} A waiver of sovereign immunity cannot be implied. Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 58, 98 S.Ct. 1670. Thus, we conclude that waivers of sovereign immunity cannot be created by implication through activities such as participation in the state’s workers’ compensation program. See Webb v. Paragon Casino, 872 So.2d 641, 646 (La.Ct.App.2004) (<HOLDING>). Inconsistent Waivers in Other Business 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity (B) holding that an official of an indian tribe should be stripped of his authority and corresponding immunity to act on behalf of his tribe whenever he exercises a power his tribe was powerless to convey to him (C) holding that state did not have jurisdiction over tribe where tribe paid into workers compensation program but had not waived sovereign immunity (D) holding that offreservation casino owned and operated by tribe was arm of the tribe and therefore was entitled to sovereign immunity (E) holding that as a matter of federal law an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity
Output (English): holding that as a matter of federal law an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity