Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma,
1997-JTP-12 (ARB Feb. 12, 1999)
U.S. Department of Labor
Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
ARB CASE NO. 98-153
(Formerly CASE NO. 98-031)
ALJ CASE NO. 97-JTP-12
DATE: February 12, 1999
In the Matter of:
CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR,
RESPONDENT,
and
DELAWARE TRIBE OF INDIANS,
PARTY-IN-INTEREST.
BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
Appearances:
For the Complainant:
James Hamilton, Esq., William J. Mertens, Esq., Wilson K. Pipestem,
Esq.,
Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP, Washington, D.C.
For the Respondent:
Michele W. Curran, Esq., Harry L. Sheinfeld, Esq., Charles D.
Raymond, Esq.
U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C.
For the Party-In-Interest:
Gina J. Carrigan, Esq., Tulsa, Oklahoma
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This case arises under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), 29 U.S.C.
§1501-1791 (1994) and implementing regulations at 20 C.F.R. Parts 626-638 (1998). The
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (Cherokee Nation) initiated this action to reverse the Grant
Officer's
award of training funds to the Delaware Tribe of Indians (Delawares) to serve Delaware Indians
in
various Oklahoma counties where training grants previously had been administered by the
Cherokee
Nation. The Cherokee Nation's challenge involved JTPA funding for program years 1997 (July
1,
1997 through June 30, 1998) and 1998 (July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999).
[U]ntil such time as legislation is enacted to the contrary, none of the
funds appropriated in this or any other Act for the benefit of Indians
residing within the jurisdictional service area of the Cherokee Nation of
Oklahoma shall be expended by other than the Cherokee Nation
. . . .
Pub.L. 102-154, Stat. 990, 1004 (Nov. 13, 1991).
2 Although
"Administrative
Review Board" is printed above the caption in the Petition for Review, the original and
copies
were not timely submitted to the Board's office, but were hand delivered on July 27, 1998 to the
Office
of Administrative Law Judges with a letter addressed to its Chief Docket Clerk. Copies of the
petition
were subsequently filed with the Board directly on August 11, 1998.
3 The Cherokee Nation argued
that
the ALJ's decision should be reversed because his interpretation of the 1992 appropriations act
was
erroneous and because he failed to consider its claim that the Delaware Tribe did not meet JTPA
funding
criteria under 20 C.F.R. §632.10. Cherokee petition at 7-21; reply brief at 1-6. Our May
7, 1998
remand order focused on the appropriations act as an issue for ALJ consideration; however, our
order
did not limit the ALJ's consideration to that issue. Thus, although we stated that
"[r]esolution of
this issue is critical to the timely instruction of the Grant Officer," id. at 3, the ALJ
was
not directed to disregard other issues in the case.