Opinion ID: 780220
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Available Remedies

Text: 35 In summary, three of the four Cort factors dictate the conclusion that Congress did not intend to create a private right of action to enforce 25 U.S.C. § 450e against a grant recipient for alleged noncompliance with the Indian employment preference. The fourth factor does not detract from our conclusion. We thus affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment on that ground. 36 We note, however, that the absence of a direct private right of action under § 450e does not leave an Indian aggrieved by a NAHASDA grantee's unlawful administration of the Indian preference without a remedy. That is because NAHASDA block grants contain their own remedial scheme, established by HUD regulation. Title 24 C.F.R. § 1000.54 provides: 37 The following procedures are applicable to complaints arising out of any of the methods of providing for Indian preference contained in this part, including alternate methods. Tribal policies that meet or exceed the requirements of this section shall apply. 38 (a) Each complaint shall be in writing, signed, and filed with the recipient. 39 (b) A complaint must be filed with the recipient no later than 20 calendar days from the date of the action (or omission) upon which the complaint is based. 40 (c) Upon receipt of a complaint, the recipient shall promptly stamp the date and time of receipt upon the complaint, and immediately acknowledge its receipt. 41 (d) Within 20 calendar days of receipt of a complaint, the recipient shall either meet, or communicate by mail or telephone, with the complainant in an effort to resolve the matter. The recipient shall make a determination on a complaint and notify the complaint, in writing, within 30 calendar days of the submittal of the complaint to the recipient. The decision of the recipient shall constitute final administrative action on the complaint. 42 Similarly, an Indian aggrieved by the failure of a party to a self-determination contract to administer the preference requirement properly may have a remedy directly under the terms of the contract. See Schmasow v. Native Am. Ctr., 293 Mont. 382, 978 P.2d 304, 305-06 (1999) (analyzing whether the defendant — a recipient of federal funds under a self-determination contract — had breached the contractual provision that was included in the contract pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 450e). 43 Although we cannot tell from the record before us whether Plaintiff pursued an administrative remedy, we need not answer that factual question to decide this case. Whether or not Plaintiff pursued an administrative remedy, he may not enforce § 450e through a court action for damages.