The Navajo Nation (Naabeehó Bináhásdzo) is a federally-recognized Indian Nation located on 27,000 square miles of land in the States of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are over 165,000 people living on the Navajo Nation. (https://data.census.gov/profile/Navajo_Nation_Reservation_and_Off-Reservation_Trust_Land,_AZ–NM–UT?g=2500000US2430).
The Navajo Nation plays a vital role in the social, cultural, economic, and legal landscape of the four-corners region, and in some ways, the United States. As a sovereign Indian Nation, it has the power to make its own laws and be ruled by them. The Navajo Preference in Employment Act (NPEA) is one example of a significant and much litigated law of the Navajo Nation. If you or your business entity is an employer on the Navajo Nation or contracts with the Navajo Nation, it is essential that you are familiar with the duties, responsibilities, enforcement mechanisms, and remedies set forth in the NPEA.
Despite the Navajo Nation’s vast human and natural resources, as well as a variety of opportunities for financial growth, the government and people of the Navajo Nation face extraordinary economic, social, and health-related challenges. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Navajo Nation has an unemployment rate of approximately 61%, the median household income is only $33,323 (compared to a median household income for the United States over $74,000), and the poverty rate is 35% (compared to a poverty rate for the United States of 12.6%). (https://data.census.gov/profile/Navajo_Nation_Reservation_and_Off-Reservation_Trust_Land,_AZ–NM–UT?g=2500000US2430#employment).
In 1985, the Navajo Nation enacted the NPEA with the intent of improving the Nation’s economic conditions through the comprehensive regulation of employment-related activities on the Navajo Nation. Among other things, the NPEA creates requirements for advertising vacancies, hiring employees, prohibiting prejudice and intimidation in the workplace, and setting standards for layoffs and adverse actions such as terminations. The NPEA’s stated purposes include creating employment opportunities for Navajo people, providing training for Navajo people, decreasing the Navajo Nation’s dependency on employment sources outside the Navajo Nation, and bolstering the self-sufficiency of Navajo families. In a 2013 federal court pleading, the Navajo Nation described the NPEA as “one of the Navajo Nation’s most important laws.”
Since its passage, the NPEA has given rise to costly and time-consuming employment-related litigation in the courts of the Navajo Nation and federal courts. The impact of this litigation on employers and employees is profound. As the Navajo Nation Supreme Court wrote in a 2000 Order, “We are mindful of the economic impact of our interpretive rulings of the NPEA. Interpreted too strictly, the NPEA might discourage business owners and employers from locating their operations on the Navajo Nation.” Dilcon Navajo Westerner/True Value Store v. Jensen, 8 Nav. R. 28, 40 (Nav. Sup. Ct. 2000).
Given the importance of the NPEA and the impact of NPEA-related litigation, it is imperative that employers, employees, and their attorneys understand the ins-and-outs of the law. This blog gives a summary of the most important aspects of the NPEA, including duties and responsibilities of employers and the means by which employees may seek enforcement of their rights. This blog does not constitute legal advice and does not address application of the NPEA to specific facts or cases. You are advised to consult legal counsel prior to dealing with actual cases or allegations of NPEA-violations.
The NPEA applies to all “persons, firms, associations, corporations, and the Navajo Nation and all of its agencies and instrumentalities, who engage the services of any person, whether as employee, agent, or servant.” Additionally, it applies to “[a]ll employers doing business within the territorial jurisdiction [or near the boundaries of] the Navajo Nation, or engaged in any contract with the Navajo Nation.” The law applies to all covered employers regardless of the size of the employer, the nature of the employer’s business, or the number of individuals employed.
The NPEA protects traditional employees, and not independent contractors. Some of the rights under the NPEA apply only to enrolled members of the Navajo Nation (e.g., the right to priority preference for employment opportunities), some rights apply to certain spouses of enrolled members of the Navajo Nation (e.g., the right to secondary preference for employment opportunities), and some rights apply to all employees regardless of Tribal affiliation (e.g., the right to a workplace free from prejudice and the right to written notice and just cause to support adverse employment actions).
As amended, the NPEA requires that all employers must:
1. Give preference in employment to Navajos and, in certain cases, spouses of Navajos.
2. File a written Navajo affirmative action plan and quarterly reports with the Office of Navajo Labor Relations (ONLR).
3. Include and specify a Navajo employment preference policy statement in job announcements, advertisements, and employer policies.
4. Post in a conspicuous place on the employer’s premises a Navajo preference policy notice prepared by the ONLR.
5. Modify all seniority systems so that they comply with the NPEA.
6. Utilize Navajo Nation employment sources and job services for employee recruitment and referrals except when a current Navajo employee is selected for the position.
7. Advertise and announce all job vacancies in at least one newspaper and radio station serving the Navajo Nation except when a current Navajo employee is selected for the position.
8. Use non-discriminatory job qualifications and selection criteria.
9. Not penalize, discipline, discharge, or take any adverse action against any employee without just cause and written notice of such cause.
10. Maintain a safe and clean working environment and provide employment conditions that are free of prejudice, intimidation, and sexual harassment.
11. Provide training as part of its affirmative action plans or activities.
12. Provide cross-cultural programs as part of its affirmative action plans, focusing on the education of non-Navajo employees regarding the cultural or religious traditions or beliefs of Navajos.
13. Ensure that fringe benefit plans, sick leave programs, and other personnel policies do not discriminate against Navajos in terms or coverage as a result of Navajo cultural or religious traditions or beliefs.
14. Establish written necessary qualifications for each employment position in the work force and provide a copy of the qualifications to all applicants when they express an interest in the position.
15. Provide reasonable accommodations to certain persons with disabilities.
16. Ensure that transaction documents such as contracts acknowledge the NPEA.
17. Refrain from retaliating against persons who have opposed an NPEA-related practice or exercised rights under the NPEA.
18. Under a separate law but which incorporates certain aspects of the NPEA, ensure that working mothers have opportunities to breastfeed their infant children or use a breast pump in the workplace.
One of the most important aspects of the NPEA is the requirement that employers give preference in employment to Navajos and, in certain cases, spouses of Navajos. Specifically, the law requires that irrespective of the qualifications of any non-Navajo applicant, a Navajo applicant who demonstrates the necessary qualifications for an employment position must be selected by the employer for hiring, promotion, recall, and other employment opportunities. Among a pool of applicants who are solely Navajo and meet the necessary qualifications, the Navajo with the best qualifications must be selected or retained. In the case of reductions-in-force, Navajo employees who demonstrate the necessary qualifications for a position must be retained until all non-Navajos are laid-off, and a Navajo who is laid-off has the right to displace a non-Navajo in any other employment position for which the Navajo is qualified.
A non-Navajo who is legally married to a Navajo and can provide proof in the form of a valid marriage certificate is entitled to secondary employment preference if he or she has resided within the Navajo Nation for a continuous one-year period immediately preceding the employment consideration. This preference is secondary in that it merely provides the non-Navajo spouse with preference over other non-Navajos.
Another important aspect of the NPEA, and one that has generated a significant amount of litigation, is that employers are prohibited from disciplining, discharging, or taking any adverse actions against employees without just cause and written notice citing such cause. The term “adverse action” is not defined in the NPEA. From the statutory context and case law, it can be inferred that adverse actions include employment terminations, demotions, pay reductions, and other disciplinary actions that have a tangible, negative effect on a person’s ongoing employment. By contrast, the termination of employment due to the expiration of a term contract that lacks an automatic renewal provision is generally not an adverse action because the employer has not taken an affirmative “action” to end the employment.
To take a lawful adverse action against an employee, the employer must have just cause and provide the employee with contemporaneous written notice of the just cause. “Just cause” is determined on a case-by-case basis in which consideration is given to a variety of factors to determine whether there was sufficient basis for the employer to take the action. For example, the Navajo Nation Supreme Court has stated that “ordinarily a violation of a clear rule set out in a personnel manual for which termination is a result of non-compliance is ‘just cause.’” Smith v. Navajo Nation Department of Head Start, 8 Nav. R. 709, 715 (Nav. Sup. Ct. 2005).
Next, the employer must provide the employee with written notice of the just cause. The Navajo Nation Supreme Court has explained that the notice must state in clear and meaningful language the adverse action being taken and the just cause supporting the adverse action. The notice must include a sufficient description of facts so that the employee can understand the reasons for the adverse action and challenge the adverse action. Finally, the notice must be provided to the employee contemporaneously with the adverse action.
Individuals who believe their rights under the NPEA have been violated may file a Charge with the ONLR. The ONLR may also file Charges on its own initiative. Charges must be filed within one year after the accrual of the claim. The ONLR is required to investigate the Charge to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the NPEA was violated. Within 180 days of the filing, the ONLR must make a determination, which might include dismissal for lack of probable cause or a determination that probable cause exists. In either event, the ONLR issues a “right to sue,” giving the charging party the right to initiate proceedings by filing a Complaint with the Navajo Nation Labor Commission (NNLC). The Complaint must be filed with the NNLC within 360 days following the date on which the Charge was filed.
The NNLC conducts evidentiary hearings, issues decisions as to whether the NPEA has been violated, and if violations are found, award relief to the complaining party. The complaining party has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the employer violated the NPEA. Decisions of the NNLC may be appealed to the Navajo Nation Supreme Court, and NNLC decision may be enforced in the District Courts of the Navajo Nation.
Through its exercise of sovereignty and law-making authority, the Navajo Nation enacted the NPEA to, among other things, expand employment rights and better the economic situation of the Navajo people. The law is both important and heavily litigated. As such, it is important that employers and employees, as well as those who are considering doing business on the Navajo Nation, have an understanding of the law.
The Office of Navajo Labor Relations https://onlr.navajo-nsn.gov/
The Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the Navajo Preference In Employment Act: A Quarter Century of Evolution, Interpretation, and Application of the Navajo Nation’s Employment Preference Laws, by Howard L. Brown and Honorable Justice Raymond D. Austin, 40 NEW MEXICO LAW REVIEW 17 (2010). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1125&context=nmlr
The Navajo Preference in Employment Act: A Review and Update of Cases and Rules,2010-2012, by Howard L. Brown and Honorable Justice Raymond D. Austin, 43 NEW MEXICOLAW REVIEW 397 (2013). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=nmlr
Applying Navajo Employment Laws to State Public School Districts on the Navajo Nation, in INSIDE THE MINDS: EMERGING ISSUES IN TRIBAL-STATE RELATIONS, 2014 ed., by Howard L. Brown (Aspatore Books, a Thomson Reuters business, June, 2014).
Working with AWD law over the last 3 years has been such a pleasure. I worked with both Zach Markham and Zach Hope through the process of a very difficult and challenging divorce. Both of these gentlemen got right down to the meat and potatoes of what was best for myself and my child to make sure that we walked away with the best possible outcome of our situation. Both of them made sure that every little detail that I provided was meticulously and thoroughly incorporated into my case and by the end it really showed. Without their help, I would not be in the position that I am today. To anyone seeking legal assistance, this firm is the right choice. In the future if I ever need legal assistance, I will absolutely be returning to AWD. Your team is incredible.
00:46 07 Sep 24Given the number of law firms to choose from in Northern Arizona, I think it was pure luck I connected with Aspey, Watkins & Diesel. I first worked with David Johns. I was amazed with his knowledge, response time and attention to detail with my project. His flexibility in working with my deadlines was unexpected, but greatly appreciated. The next time I needed legal representation, I contacted David first. He connected me with one of his colleagues, Michael Wozniak. Again, I was amazed and impressed with not only the level of service, but also his knowledge of the law as it pertained to my situation. I truly felt as though it couldn't have gone any better! Throughout my experiences with the firm, Madison kept me informed along the way and patiently answered the many questions I had! If you are like I was and think choosing the right attorney seems like an impossible task, give Aspey, Watkins and Diesel a call. It certainly was the right decision for me!
01:30 21 Aug 24If you are like us and need legal advice to solve an unwanted problem, you should always want the best representation possible. And, that is what you get with AWD. Our unfortunate circumstances required us to identify and retain a lawyer quickly. Responding to our situation was Whitney Cunningham, Managing Partner of AWD, and a host of other qualified professionals, including Monica Pertea, Partner, Not only were our multiple situations resolved favorably for us, we had the comfort and satisfaction of knowing we were receiving up-to-the minute professional and ethical advice as well as much-needed guidance through litigation and the judicial process. While Aspey Watkins may seem like a smaller, regional Flagstaff, AZ law firm, they are widely respected and have unlimited scope and breadth. Don't underestimate their potential to assist you!Bill & Susan Cammock
14:06 13 Aug 24Zach is a consummate professional and a lovely human being. My divorce was complicated but he handled it with grace. I am truly grateful to him for his assistance during a very difficult time in my life. I highly recommend his services and that of his staff.
21:32 09 Aug 24Jason was absolutely the best choice for us. He is knowledgeable, professional and bottom line, he got the job done! We would not have had such successful results without him. Thank you Jason, you and your team were wonderful to work with.Dana
18:26 08 Aug 24I worked with Jenny and Lynae, and they were WONDERFUL! Jenny helped me navigate divorce (with a minor) — she was so supportive, knowledgeable and always answered my questions thoroughly. She made a difficult and confusing process extremely easy, and her calm and kind demeanor kept me at ease. I couldn’t recommend AWD Law more!
06:08 29 Jul 24Great experience with AWD Law. Attorney Zach Markham was very helpful with my case and was very knowledgeable about ins and outs of the system. He was available for answering all my questions and showed great sense of empathy in my case. Ms. Ann Thurber helped significantly with all the admin and paperwork questions. I would certainly recommend Attorney Markham and his team for any family law case.
15:14 22 Jul 24AWD Law Firm Is Great ! Darius Mahmoudi helped me beat a Injunction against harassment case. He was friendly, knowledgeable, and very professional. I felt very secure with him by my side in court. Thank You
18:50 18 Jul 24Great experience with AWD Law. Attorney Zach Markham was very helpful with my case and was very knowledgeable about ins and outs of the system. I felt that he had my back through my difficult situation and was available for answering all my questions about it. Ms. Ann Thurber helped significantly with all the admin and paperwork questions. I would certainly recommend Attorney Markham and his team for any family law case.
17:32 18 Jul 24I have used Trevor Kortsen on numerous occasions and for many different reasons. I have to say that I’m always impressed by the follow up and attention to retail that he provides. Even if it’s a small issue and or questions he’s always available and gives great advice. I would recommend Trevor to anyone needing legal representation.
17:10 13 Jul 24AWD handled our estate plan and did a wonderful job. Trevor kortsen was the attorney that handled the plan and made it very easy for us. He was very diligent about explaining all the important decisions and walked us through some very personal details that were covered in our plan. He was very responsive and made us seem like we were a priority every time we spoke with him. I would highly recommend using AWD and Trevor kortsen for any legal needs.
21:56 11 Jul 24Law enforcement officers attempted to give me a DUI charge, and because my BAC was 0.049 that wasn’t an option. I was slapped with a reckless driving charge instead. They prosecuted me without leniency or mercy. Mike Wozniak and Madison Gansch of Aspey Watkins and Diesel represented me from beginning to the end. The result was “not guilty” and all charges were dropped! They are worth every dollar and a reasonable flat fee didn’t stress me out like not knowing how much my next bill would be. Many thanks and prayers answered from me!
18:37 17 May 24Jenny Staskey and her staff were so helpful and responsive as I navigated the waters of divorce. Jenny was terrific at helping me get all discovery done and to present a fair and reasonable settlement.
17:55 12 Apr 24Very thankful to AWD and especially Jason Bliss, Allison Keller and Myra Henry for their help in assisting an 85 year old neighbor who was being sued. They were professional, caring and exceptional in their support and follow up, and in concluding a successful outcome. Would definitely recommend their services, if anyone needs legal representation!
17:14 04 Apr 24AWD is the best law firm in Flagstaff and has represented our business and family interests for 30+ years. Most recently, they probated our parents' estate. Kathryn Mahady represented us and did a remarkable job. She was always available to assist and answer questions, but proactively worked to keep us from incurring unnecessary costs. Even though they are the best firm, AWD's prices are reasonable and they work hard to make sure their clients know the costs upfront - no surprise. We can't thank them enough for helping us through this difficult time.
23:18 08 Mar 24I cannot say enough good about my experience with Jennifer Staskey representing me in a divorce . Her knowledge, skills and overwhelming ability to help me feel confident made such a difference in this difficult time. She is very personable, confident, and efficient. The entire staff there have also been excellent to deal with. She comes with my highest respect. I would recommend her to anyone with highest remarks.
21:04 18 Feb 24Zach Markham at AWD law was amazing. He and Ann helped me through a very challenging divorce. They were available, kept me focused on what I needed to do to be successful, highly competent, had my best interests in mind, treated me with kindness and respect, had my back, and helped me keep costs down as much as possible. They helped keep me out of a costly courtroom and settle amicably. I feel very grateful to have been represented by Zach and feel the positive outcome is owed greatly due to his hard work. Thank you Zach and thank you Ann… I appreciate you so much.
17:50 12 Feb 24Divorce is heart-wrenching, time consuming, emotional and scary. In my case, a lawyer was essential. I am so glad I made the right choice with Zach Markham at Aspey, Watkins and DIesel in Flagstaff. I am a real person, resident of Flagstaff for nearly 8 years, married for four years. Arizona’s community property laws are confusing and frankly put those who provide the majority of the household income at a serious disadvantage. I was right there on the wrong end of the situation.Zach genuinely understood what i was going through and the financial pressure I was under. Being a local attorney, Zach knows the court system here because he is local and has been practicing in this area for many years. I believe that local experience made a big difference in this case. Although my divorce was fairly simple, there was a real risk I could lose my Flagstaff home and my ex was making serious demands.AWD Law has the same resources as an expensive Phoenix law firm. This includes CPA and legal Paraprofessional Jenny Staskey, who was able to provide forensic accounting service to deliver the defensible evidence regarding marital assets so I could make a fair offer. In the end the case didn’t wind up going to court as we settled after a few hours of tough negotiation. I am very grateful to Zach and his team for bringing this matter to a close quickly, and efficiently. The cost was fair, and could have been much worse if we weren’t so well prepared for the settlement conference. Zach’s advice was consistently right. I highly recommend AWD Law.
21:08 08 Feb 24The representation I received from Mike and Cait did not meet my expectations. It’s been a few months since I’ve accepted a plea deal that I feel like I was pressured into.My case was said to be very strong and straight forward in my favor. I spoke to an attorney and was made to feel very confident in hiring said firm and paid my retainer fee up front of 3,000$.My attorney gathered up all of the information that was available and I thought I was in good hands.Time passes and my hearing is getting closer, my attorney gives me a call and says I’ve been offered a plea deal and it was presented to me so grandly like it was super rare and practically Scott free. I was initially excited until I did my own research and reached out and expressed I wasn’t fully comfortable accepting it after all. The tone immediately changed and it felt as though my attorney was immediately frustrated with me not wanting to accept, and after multiple calls it was apparent I was a head ache but I out right apologized for not being familiar with legal terms and what a plea deal entices. But in the end I was very poorly explained what accepting a plea deal meant.The hearing comes , but the night before my attorney calls and says that she won’t be there because she is busy and will substitute another attorney in. She had mentioned he would be there early because I still had uncertainty and we could discuss it. But the day of Mike arrives late, bushy hair and wrinkly clothes and very unorganized. He skims the report and also brings a copy of the plea and once again makes it out to be the better option. I express once again I’m not comfortable with the plea and he asks the judge to postpone which we did.Once again I say I would prefer a trial and I was told okay a trial it is Mike and Cait both said they were confident in a trial. A short time passes and they call me into their office in person to reconsider the plea deal. Once again they say it’s practically a guarantee and it’ll save me so much money and how a trial should be avoided and they kept saying how not just anyone gets my plea deal and I only had received it because I have no criminal record and no history of causing any trouble and because the accusations against me held little to no weight. Every time I expressed I’d prefer a trial they’d promote the plea and finish each sentence with “but it’s up to you”. I later found out the person I had accusations against with solid evidence and testimonies had received the exact same plea deal and that individual indeed does have a brief criminal record and a history of similar incidents.I eventually accepted the plea deal, and that was the key for them to stop reaching out to me. I did not hear from them anymore till the hearing and after that I was sent on my way.Reflecting on it now I still would have preferred a trial, I’m still very confident in my truth and my case. I paid 3,000$ but definitely did not receive 3,000$ worth of representation. My case was treated with little to no urgency. Since then I still had to pay court fees because obviously accepting a plea isn’t free, cheaper than a trial but not free. And I had to do a drug and alcohol screening which was uncomfortable because I don’t associate with neither at all. And now I got to complete counseling twice a week with multiple months still remaining to fulfill for my plea deal. Counseling isn’t cheap, it costs money for each session and I’ve had to miss work to attend the screenings. I have a full time job , 2 children and am in school so adding counseling to my schedule was nearly impossible but I have to make it work. It’s upsetting because I could have just accepted a plea deal myself for free.I do not belong in jail or counseling, nor do I deserve to be on probation for 9 months all while paying for my “treatment” out of pocket. But nearly 4,000$ later apparently Aspey Watkins says otherwise. In the long run accepting a trial may have costed less and would have saved so much of my time.That is my experience with the Aspey Watkins firm. I do not recommend at all.