Boureslan v. Aramco

• Decision Date: 17 October 1988
• Docket Number: No. 87-2206,87-2206
• Citation: 857 F.2d 1014
• Parties: 48 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1, 48 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,394, 57 USLW 2237 Ali BOURESLAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARAMCO, Arabian American Oil Company and Aramco Service Company, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 1014

857 F.2d 1014

48 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1, 48 Empl. Prac. Dec.

P 38,394,

57 USLW 2237

Ali BOURESLAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARAMCO, Arabian American Oil Company and Aramco Service

Company, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 87-2206.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 17, 1988.

James Field Tyson, Perry Archer, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.

Charles A. Shanor, Karen MacRae Smith, E.E.O.C., Washington, D.C., for amicus-E.E.O.C.

Edward E. Potter, McGuiness & Williams, Washington, D.C., for amicus E.E.A.C.

John D. Roady, Linda Ottinger Headley, Hutcheson & Grundy, Houston, Tex., for Aramco.

Lawrence Z. Lorber, John E. Parauda, Breed, Abbott & Morgan, Washington, D.C., for amicus-ASPA.

Cecil J. Olmstead, Steptoe & Johnson, Washington, D.C., for amicus-Rule of Law Committee.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas.

Before KING ^* and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and PARKER, ^** District Judge.

W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff, a naturalized citizen of the United States, brought an employment discrimination suit--predicated upon Title VII and state law causes of action--against his employer, a United States corporation whose principal place of business is in Saudi Arabia. In his suit, plaintiff charged that while he was working in Saudi Arabia, his employer discriminated against him on the basis of his race, religion, and national origin. The employer contested plaintiff's claims of discrimination and, in addition, moved the district court to dismiss the entire action. The employer argued that the reach of Title VII does not extend to United States citizens employed abroad by United States employers and, therefore, that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim. The district court agreed, granted the employer's motion, and dismissed plaintiff's suit. On appeal, plaintiff--joined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as amicus curiae--urges us to conclude, that Congress intended Title VII to apply extraterritorially to protect United States citizens employed by United States employers. We find, however, that the rules of statutory construction which control our review of Title VII do not permit the conclusion plaintiff urges--we cannot say that Congress, through either the language of Title VII or its legislative history, clearly expressed its intent that Title VII be applied extraterritorially. Therefore, we conclude that Title VII does not offer plaintiff an available remedy for his claimed discrimination and affirm the district court.

I.

This appeal presents a single issue: Does Title VII regulate the employment practices of businesses which, although incorporated in the United States, employ citizens of the United States in foreign countries? The question reaches us as a result of the employment relationship between Ali Boureslan, Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco), and Aramco Services Company (ASC). In 1979, Boureslan--a naturalized United States citizen who was born in Lebanon--went to work as an engineer for ASC in Houston, Texas. ASC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Houston; ASC is a subsidiary of Aramco, licensed to do business in Texas, with its principal place of business in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. In November 1980, Boureslan requested a transfer to Aramco. Because Aramco explores, produces, and refines oil and gas exclusively within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Boureslan's transfer from ASC to Aramco also meant a transfer from the United States to Saudi Arabia.

Shortly after beginning work in Saudi Arabia, Boureslan began having altercations with his supervisor. According to Boureslan, the altercations were the result of a "campaign of harassment" which the supervisor initiated--a campaign which took the form of racial, religious, and ethnic slurs and which culminated in Boureslan's termination on June 16, 1984.

After he was fired, Boureslan first filed charges against Aramco with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in the United States and, later, instituted this suit against both Aramco and ASC in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In each case, the focus of Boureslan's attack was the discriminatory treatment which he allegedly received while in Saudi Arabia from his Aramco supervisor. In his lawsuit, Boureslan sought relief under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 2000e et seq., and state law. In response to the lawsuit, both Aramco and ASC filed answers denying liability and separately filed motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ASC stressed two reasons why Boureslan's claims against ASC should be dismissed. First, ASC argued that, at most, only Aramco could be liable to Boureslan since, according to ASC, Boureslan's transfer from ASC to Aramco terminated the employment relationship between ASC and Boureslan. Second, ASC argued that Boureslan failed properly to exhaust his administrative remedies under Title VII with respect to ASC because Boureslan named only Aramco in the one grievance he filed with the EEOC.

While ASC's grounds for dismissal challenged only the propriety of its own inclusion in Boureslan's lawsuit, Aramco's motion to dismiss raised a more sweeping challenge--a challenge which, if true, required a dismissal of the lawsuit against both Aramco and ASC. Aramco argued that the protections of Title VII do not extend extraterritorially and, consequently, that Title VII offers no protection to Boureslan for acts of discrimination which occurred in Saudia Arabia. Boureslan contested this interpretation, and argued that the clear and express terms of Title VII demonstrate Congress' intent to protect United States citizens from employment discrimination by American employers regardless of where the discrimination occurs. In an opinion dated January 27, 1987, the district court considered carefully the question of Title VII's geographic reach. After examining Title VII's language and legislative history, Supreme Court cases on extraterritorial application of federal statutes, and other existing case law on the scope of Title VII, the district court concluded that Title VII does not afford extraterritorial protection. Boureslan v. Aramco, 653 F.Supp. 629, 631 (S.D.Tex.1987). Consequently, the court dismissed Boureslan's Title VII action against Aramco and ASC for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; it also dismissed Boureslan's state law claims for lack of pendent jurisdiction, and entered final judgment in favor of both defendants. On appeal, Boureslan asks us to find that Congress intended Title VII to be applied extraterritorially.

II.

A special set of rules of statutory interpretation are in place to assist us in determining whether Congress intended to give a statute application outside this country. We first examine those rules.

In Foley Bros., Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, 69 S.Ct. 575, 93 L.Ed. 680 (1949), the Supreme Court considered whether a federal statute prohibiting workdays of longer than eight hours without overtime pay applied to a contract between the United States and a private contractor for work performed in a foreign country. Id. at 282, 69 S.Ct. at 576. As the Court saw it:

The canon on construction which teaches that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, is a valid approach whereby unexpressed congressional intent may be ascertained. It is based on the assumption that Congress is primarily concerned with domestic conditions. We find nothing in the Act itself, as amended, nor in the legislative history, which would lead to the belief that Congress entertained any intention other than the normal one in this case.

Id. at 285, 69 S.Ct. at 577 (citation omitted).

See also McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras, 372 U.S. 10, 21-22, 83 S.Ct. 671, 677-78, 9 L.Ed.2d 547 (1963).

This court has consistently applied the presumption against extraterritoriality. In United States v. Mitchell, 553 F.2d 996 (5th Cir.1977), we refused to read extraterritorial application into the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In ruling against extraterritorial application, we noted that "the government [failed] to [show] any clear expression of congressional intent [to overcome the presumption against extraterritorial application]." In De Yoreo v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 785 F.2d 1282, 1283 (5th Cir.1986), we rejected the argument that the Age Discrimination In Employment Act (ADEA) be given extraterritorial application.

Other circuits have followed the Supreme Court in denying extraterritorial application without a clear congressional expression of intent to the contrary. For example, in Pfeiffer v. Wm. Wrigley, Jr. Co., 755 F.2d 554 (7th Cir.1985), the Seventh Circuit considered the extraterritorial application of the ADEA. After finding that the statute did not speak directly to the issue of extraterritorial application, the court applied the presumption against extraterritorial application, noting that "[t]he fear of outright collisions between domestic and foreign law--collisions both hard on the people caught in the cross-fire and a potential source of friction between the United States and foreign countries--lies behind the presumption against the extraterritorial application of federal statutes." Id. at 557. Likewise in Cleary v. United States Lines, Inc., 728 F.2d 607 (3d Cir.1984), the Third Circuit rejected the application of the ADEA extraterritorially without "affirmative evidence of congressional intent." See also Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Ass'n Int'l v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 273 F.2d 69, 70 (2d Cir.1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 988, 80 S.Ct. 1075, 4 L.Ed.2d 1021 (1960) (denying extraterritorial application of the Railway Labor Act (RLA)); Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Ass'n...