We likewise review questions of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. We review de novo a district court's dismissal of a complaint on grounds of sovereign immunity. It likewise extended this logic to shield the Casino it concluded that because it is wholly-owned, operated by the Tribe, and formed pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the Casino constitutes a subordinate arm of the Tribe and is therefore immune from suit. It held that, because Congress did not abrogate tribal immunity with regard to Title VII, sovereign immunity barred Ms. The district court agreed and granted the Tribe's motion.
Mastro failed to state a claim and that the district court lacked subject - matter jurisdiction because the Tribe and Casino are entitled to tribal immunity. The Tribe moved to dismiss, arguing that Ms. Mastro, formerly employed as a card dealer at Seminole Indian Casino - Immokalee, sued the Seminole Tribe of Florida, d/b/a Seminole Indian Casino - Immokalee, for gender discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act. Iīecause we write for the parties, we assume familiarity with the underlying facts of the case and recite only what is necessary to resolve this appeal. Having considered the parties' briefs and the record, we affirm.
Stephanie Mastro appeals the district court's dismissal of her amended complaint for lack of subject - matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
0 kommentar(er)
