When Navajo Nation employees file Labor Commission grievances, they expect their claims to be decided under the laws that existed when the dispute arose. A recent Navajo Nation Supreme Court decision involving Erik Francisco and the Navajo Nation Division of Public Safety reinforced an important principle of fairness: employers and tribunals generally cannot apply later legal changes that alter the rights and obligations that existed when a grievance was filed.
The Employment Dispute
Erik Francisco worked as an Internal Affairs Investigator and filed a grievance alleging, among other things, that he had been improperly passed over for promotion in violation of the Navajo Preference in Employment Act (NPEA). He argued that he was the most qualified applicant and that another applicant was selected instead.
The Labor Commission ultimately dismissed his claim, concluding that he had failed to meet his burden of proof.
What Went Wrong?
The problem was not whether Mr. Francisco deserved the promotion.
The Navajo Supreme Court focused on a different question:
Who had the burden of proof?
When Mr. Francisco filed his grievance in 2013, Navajo law placed the burden on the employer to prove compliance with the Navajo Preference in Employment Act. However, the law was amended in 2016 while the case was pending. The Labor Commission applied the newer standard and required Mr. Francisco to carry the burden.
The Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court held that the Labor Commission applied the wrong legal standard. The Court explained that the law in effect when the grievance was filed generally governs the proceedings and that later amendments cannot be applied retroactively when doing so changes legal rights and obligations.
The Court reversed the Labor Commission's decision and sent the case back for a new hearing with the burden on the employer to prove compliance with the NPEA.
Why This Matters for Navajo Employees
This decision offers important protections.
If you filed an employment grievance years ago and the law later changed, those changes may not automatically apply to your case. The filing date can be critically important in determining:
Who has the burden of proof.
What legal standards apply.
What rights are available.
What evidence may be required.
The case also demonstrates why employees should preserve records of applications, interview scores, performance evaluations, grievance filings, and other employment documents.
Why This Matters for Employers
The decision serves as a reminder that employers must maintain documentation supporting employment decisions and identify which version of the law applies to a particular dispute. Hiring records, interview materials, scoring sheets, and qualification assessments may become important evidence years later.
Four Warning Signs in Promotion Cases
Employees should pay close attention when:
Interview score sheets are unavailable.
Selection criteria are unclear.
The employer cannot explain why another applicant was more qualified.
New policies or legal standards suddenly appear during a pending case.
Those issues do not automatically prove a violation, but they may warrant closer review.
The Bigger Lesson
Perhaps the most important lesson from the Francisco decision is that fairness matters in Navajo employment proceedings. The Navajo Supreme Court emphasized that changing legal standards after a case has already begun can undermine fundamental fairness and the rule of law.
For employees, that means filing grievances promptly and preserving records. For employers, it means documenting employment decisions and ensuring Labor Commission proceedings are conducted under the proper legal standards.
Need Help With a Navajo Labor Commission Matter?
Employment disputes involving promotions, discipline, termination, Navajo Preference, and Labor Commission proceedings often involve technical procedural rules that can significantly affect the outcome of a case.
If you believe your employment rights have been violated or you are involved in a Navajo Nation Labor Commission matter, contact Rudy Anaya Law to discuss your situation and understand your legal options.
