1129 (11th Cir.1999); cf. EEOC v. Cherokee Nation, 871 F.2d 937, 938 (10th Cir.1989) (“ADEA is not applicable because its enforcement would directly interfere with the Cherokee Nation’s treaty-protected right of self-government”); Nero v. Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, 892 F.2d 1457, 1463 (10th Cir.1989) (plaintiffs could not assert claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 2000d because they would affect the tribe’s right to self-governance). Under this principle, the scope of the ANC exemption should be circumscribed to circumstances where the burden of employer liability under federal antidiscrimination laws impinge on a tribe’s self-governance by in employers,” including Native American tribes. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(B)(i); see, e.g., Charland v. Little Six, Inc., 198 F.3d 249 (8th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). The purpose of the ADA is to “invoke the
holding one who claims tax exemption has burden of showing entitlement to exemption holding that exemption under the ada does not preclude liability under the rehabilitation act holding that the ada does not create a remedy for medical malpractice holding former employee of tribeowned casino has no private remedy under the ada because of tribal exemption holding act qualifies as exemption statute under exemption 3