its arti cles of incorporation. This argument was not raised before the district court, so we decline to consider it here. See Neu v. Grant, 548 F.2d 281, 287 (10th Cir.1977). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 1 . The decision of the district court is reported in Dille v. Council of Energy Resource Tribes, 610 F.Supp. 157 (D.Colo.1985). 2 . The EEOC has interpreted the Indian tribe exemption to mean that a non-profit corporation seeking to promote the economic development of Indian people is not exempt from the requirements of Title VII. EEOC Decision No. 80-14 (1980), EEOC Decisions 1983 (CCH) ¶ 6823. We believe that the appropriate EEOC decision regarding the status of a group of sovereign Indian tribes is EEOC Decision No. 71-405 (1970), EEOC Decisions 1973 (CCH) ¶6182 (<HOLDING>). To the extent that the first decision
holding that the land under navigable waters was not granted by the constitution to the united states but was reserved to the states respectively and that new states have the same rights jurisdiction and sovereignty over the soil under navigable water as the original states holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii holding claims based on title vii subject to arbitration holding that a claim for discrimination in private employment is not preempted by title vii holding that a multistate educational agency created and controlled by eight states was entitled to the then existing exemption from title vii for states