Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02113/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02113-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jason Willis, a single man,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bashas' Inc., an Arizona Corporation;

Navajo Nation, Rule 19 defendant,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2113-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Defendant Bashas', Inc., moves to dismiss this action against it for race discrimination

in employment based upon the absence of an indispensable party, the Navajo Nation.

(Motion to Dismiss, doc. # 21.) 

I. Nature of the Action and of the Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff Jason Willis ("Willis") alleges that Defendant Bashas', Inc. (“Bashas”),

“refused to hire Mr. Willis because of his race, African-American.” (Second Amended

Complaint, doc. # 32 at 1.) Bashas is a state-wide supermarket retailer with stores on the

Navajo Reservation. Willis alleges that he applied for open positions for which he was

qualified at Bashas' store in Pinon, AZ, and that “no other qualified applicants of Navajo

descent . . . had applied for and/or . . . were being considered . . . .” (Id. at ¶ 10.) He further

alleges that Bashas' “did not have any qualified applicants for the position . . . yet it refused

to hire Mr. Willis because he was African-American” and he was told that was the reason.

Case 2:04-cv-02113-NVW Document 47 Filed 05/15/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

 (Id. at ¶¶11 and 15.) When Willis returned to Bashas' later, he was informed that another

Bashas' store would hire him if he would marry his girlfriend, who is Navajo. (Id. at ¶ 17.)

Willis pleads claims for racial discrimination in employment in violation of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)(2), and for intentional infliction of emotional

distress. (doc. # 21.)

Bashas' moves under Rules 12(b)(6), 12(b)(7), and 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure to dismiss, arguing that the Navajo Nation is a necessary and indispensable party

to this action that cannot be joined because of tribal sovereign immunity. Though Willis has

named the Navajo Nation as a “Rule 19 Defendant” in his Second Amended Complaint, he

has not served the Nation, and it obviously cannot be sued because of sovereign immunity.

Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, 276 F.3d

1150, 1159-61 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Bashas' lease with the Navajo Nation under which it operates its stores requires

employment preference for Navajos, including affirmative recruitment goals and timetables,

and compliance with the Navajo Preference in Employment Act, 15 Navajo Nation Code §§

601 et seq. (2005).

II. Analysis

It is settled law in this circuit that an employment discrimination action against an onreservation employer based on the employer's compliance with (that is, failure to breach) a

tribal lease requiring Indian or tribal preference in employment may not proceed in the

absence of the tribe, which is an indispensable party under Rule 19(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.

Dawavendewa, 276 F.3d at 1161. The plaintiff in Dawavendewa directly attacked the

employer's compliance with the lease-mandated tribal preference. 276 F.3d at 1153.

Accordingly, if Willis were suing Bashas' for not hiring him to comply with the

Navajo preference clause of its lease, the Nation would be a Rule 19(b) indispensable party

that cannot be joined, and this action would have to be dismissed. The vagueness of the

Second Amended Complaint might allow it to be so read, but Willis's brief narrows his claim

to plain discrimination on account of him being African-American, unconnected with

Case 2:04-cv-02113-NVW Document 47 Filed 05/15/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

compliance with the lease preference provision. He does not challenge Bashas' defense of

compliance with its tribal lease, also obligating it to comply with the Navajo Preference in

Employment Act. “Employer could comply quite easily with both NPEA and Title VII . .

.. [T]o the extent that Employer's actions exceeded the scope of the NPEA, Employer is liable

to Mr. Willis pursuant to Title VII.” (doc. # 26 at 2-3.) Nothing in Dawavendewa

immunizes an on-reservation employer from Title VII suit for employment discrimination

not under color of preference required by a lease or contract with the tribe. 

Two clarifications are in order. First, Willis may intend to argue that Title VII

requires Bashas' to employ a non-Navajo rather than hold a position open longer in hopes of

recruiting a qualified Navajo to meet its employment preference obligation and goals. (doc.

# 26 at 2-3.) Bashas' is entitled to the full sweep of its lease obligations as a defense to the

Title VII claim. A crabbed reading of those lease obligations could implicate the interests

of the other party to the lease, the Navajo Nation. But the court may eliminate absentee

indispensability “by protective provisions in the judgment, by shaping of relief, or other

measures” to lessen or avoid the prejudice. Rule 19(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. Accordingly, the

employment preference clause in the lease will be given its fair import, and both the

preference language and the recruitment goals and timetable will be construed to fairly entitle

Bashas' to recruit qualified Navajos and to hold positions open to get them. The court's

shaping of relief and permitted issues will eliminate any indispensability concerns if Willis

should contend that Bashas' looked too long for a Navajo, rather than rejecting him because

he is African-American, as he alleges in the Second Amended Complaint.

Second, there is no case or controversy here concerning the lawfulness of the

preference given to non-Navajo spouses of Navajos under the Navajo Preference in

Employment Act. Although Willis alleges that Bashas' invited him to come within that

preference by marrying his Navajo girlfriend, he did not marry her. (doc. # 32 ¶ 17.) It is not

alleged that the person or persons hired for the positions Willis sought were chosen over him

because of that preference.

Case 2:04-cv-02113-NVW Document 47 Filed 05/15/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

In summary, though the Motion to Dismiss (doc. # 21) will be denied, the

considerations of indispensability that it raises mark boundaries on what is left of this action.

Depending on the evidence, there may be little or nothing left; but the Navajo Nation is not

an indispensable party to that residuum.

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (doc. # 21) is

denied.

DATED this 15th day of May 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02113-NVW Document 47 Filed 05/15/06 Page 4 of 4