Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Arabian American Oil Company Boureslan v. Arabian American Oil Company, s. 89-1838

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation499 U.S. 244,113 L.Ed.2d 274,111 S.Ct. 1227
Docket NumberNos. 89-1838,89-1845,s. 89-1838
PartiesEQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. ARABIAN AMERICAN OIL COMPANY and Aramco Services Company. Ali BOURESLAN, Petitioner, v. ARABIAN AMERICAN OIL COMPANY and Aramco Services Company
Decision Date26 March 1991
Syllabus

Petitioner Boureslan, a naturalized United States citizen born in Lebanon and working in Saudi Arabia, was discharged by his employer, respondent Arabian American Oil Company, a Delaware corporation. After filing a charge with petitioner Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), he instituted suit in the District Court, seeking relief under, inter alia, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the ground that he had been discriminated against because of his race, religion, and national origin. In dismissing this claim, the court ruled that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Title VII's protections do not extend to United States citizens employed abroad by American employers. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held: Title VII does not apply extraterritorially to regulate the employment practices of United States firms that employ American citizens abroad. Petitioners' evidence, while not totally lacking in probative value, falls short of demonstrating the clearly expressed affirmative congressional intent that is required to overcome the well-established presumption against statutory extraterritoriality. Pp. 248-259.

(a) Petitioners argue unpersuasively that Title VII's "broad jurisdictional language"—which extends the Act's protections to commerce "between a State and any place outside thereof"—evinces a clear intent to legislate extraterritorially. The language relied on is ambiguous, does not speak directly to the question presented here, and constitutes boilerplate language found in any number of congressional Acts, none of which have been held to apply overseas. Petitioners' argument also finds no support in this Court's decisions, which have repeatedly held that even statutes containing broad language in their definitions of "commerce" that expressly refer to "foreign commerce" do not apply abroad. See, e.g., McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras, 372 U.S. 10, 15, 19, 83 S.Ct. 671, 674, 676, 9 L.Ed.2d 547. Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280, 286, 73 S.Ct. 252, 255, 97 L.Ed. 319, distinguished. Pp. 249-253.

(b) Petitioners also argue unpersuasively that Title VII's "alien exemption" clause—which renders the statute inapplicable "to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State"—clearly manifests the necessary congressional intent to cover employers of United States citizens working abroad. If petitioners were correct, there would be no statutory basis for distinguishing between American employers and foreign employers. Absent clearer evidence of congressional intent, this Court is unwilling to ascribe to Congress a policy which would raise difficult international law issues by imposing this country's employment-discrimination regime upon foreign corporations operating in foreign commerce. This conclusion is fortified by other factors suggesting a purely domestic focus, including Title VII's failure even to mention foreign nations or proceedings despite a number of provisions indicating a concern that the sovereignty and laws of States not be unduly interfered with, and the Act's failure to provide any mechanisms for its overseas enforcement. It is also reasonable to conclude that had Congress intended Title VII to apply overseas, it would have addressed the subject of conflicts with foreign laws and procedures, as it did in amending the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) to apply abroad. Pp. 253-256.

(c) Petitioners' contention that this Court should defer to the EEOC's position that Title VII applies abroad is rejected. The EEOC's interpretation does not fare well under the deference standards set forth in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125, 140-146, 97 S.Ct. 401, 410-413, 50 L.Ed.2d 343, since the interpretation has been neither contemporaneous with Title VII's enactment nor consistent with an earlier, contrary position enunciated by the EEOC closer to the date the statute came into law, since the EEOC offers no basis in its experience for the change, and since the interpretation lacks support in the statute's plain language. Although this Court does not wholly discount the interpretation, it is of insufficient weight, even when considered in combination with petitioners' other arguments, to overcome the presumption against extraterritorial application. Pp. 256-258.

(d) Congress' awareness of the need to make a clear statement that a statute applies overseas is amply demonstrated by the numerous occasions on which it has legislated extraterritoriality, including its amendment of the ADEA. Congress may similarly amend Title VII and in doing so will be able to calibrate its provisions in a way that this Court cannot. Pp. 258-259.

892 F.2d 1271 (CA 5 1990), affirmed.

REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed an- opin ion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p. ----. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BLACKMUN and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. ----.

Sol. Gen. Kenneth W. Starr, Washington, D.C., for petitioners in both cases.

Paul L. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for respondents.

Chief Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

These cases present the issue whether Title VII applies extraterritorially to regulate the employment practices of United States employers who employ United States citizens abroad. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that it does not, and we agree with that conclusion.

Petitioner Boureslan is a naturalized United States citizen who was born in Lebanon. The respondents are two Delaware corporations, Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco), and its subsidiary, Aramco Service Company (ASC). Aramco's principal place of business is Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, and it is licensed to do business in Texas. ASC's principal place of business is Houston, Texas.

In 1979, Boureslan was hired by ASC as a cost engineer in Houston. A year later he was transferred, at his request, to work for Aramco in Saudi Arabia. Boureslan remained with Aramco in Saudi Arabia until he was discharged in 1984. After filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), he instituted this suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Aramco and ASC. He sought relief under both state law and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e—2000e-17, on the ground that he was harassed and ultimately discharged by respondents on account of his race, religion, and national origin.

Respondents filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that the District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Boureslan's claim because the protections of Title VII do not extend to United States citizens employed abroad by American employers. The District Court agreed and dismissed Boureslan's Title VII claim; it also dismissed his state-law claims for lack of pendent jurisdiction and entered final judgment in favor of respondents. A panel for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. After vacating the panel's decision and rehearing the case en banc, the court affirmed the District Court's dismissal of Boureslan's complaint. Both Boureslan and the EEOC petitioned for certiorari. We granted both petitions for certiorari to resolve this important issue of statutory interpretation.

Both parties concede, as they must, that Congress has the authority to enforce its laws beyond the territorial boundaries of the United States. Cf. Foley Bros., Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, 284-285, 69 S.Ct. 575, 577, 93 L.Ed. 680 (1949); Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, S.A., 353 U.S. 138, 147, 77 S.Ct. 699, 704, 1 L.Ed.2d 709 (1957). Whether Congress has in fact exercised that authority in this case is a matter of statutory construction. It is our task to determine whether Congress intended the protections of Title VII to apply to United States citizens employed by American employers outside of the United States.

It is a longstanding principle of American law "that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." Foley Bros., 336 U.S., at 285, 69 S.Ct., at 577. This "canon of construction . . . is a valid approach whereby unexpressed congressional intent may be ascertained." Ibid. It serves to protect against unintended clashes between our laws and those of other nations which could result in international discord. See McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras, 372 U.S. 10, 20-22, 83 S.Ct. 671, 677-678, 9 L.Ed.2d 547 (1963).

In applying this rule of construction, we look to see whether "language in the [relevant Act] gives any indication of a congressional purpose to extend its coverage beyond places over which the United States has sovereignty or has some measure of legislative control." Foley Bros., supra, 336 U.S., at 285, 69 S.Ct., at 577. We assume that Congress legislates against the backdrop of the presumption against extraterritoriality. Therefore, unless there is "the affirmative intention of the Congress clearly expressed," Benz, supra, 353 U.S., at 147, 77 S.Ct., at 704, we must presume it "is primarily concerned with domestic conditions." Foley Bros., supra, 336 U.S., at 285, 69 S.Ct., at 577.

Boureslan and the EEOC contend that the language of Title VII evinces a clearly expressed intent on behalf of Congress to legislate extraterritorially. They rely principally on two provisions of the statute. First, petitioners argue that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
671 cases
  • Mateo v. M/S KISO
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 19 Noviembre 1991
    ...for summary judgment against plaintiff Salvador Ocampo. August Order, at 48. 8 In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Arabian American Oil Co., ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1227, 113 L.Ed.2d 274 (1991), the Supreme Court held that Title VII does not apply extraterritorially to American em......
  • Kennedy v. Carnival Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 6 Marzo 2019
    ...is understood that "Congress legislates against the backdrop" of certain unexpressed presumptions. EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co. , 499 U.S. 244, 248, 111 S.Ct. 1227, 113 L.Ed.2d 274 (1991). One such presumption is that, when Congress employs a common law term, the cluster of common law i......
  • Jaekel v. Equifax Marketing Decision Systems, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 26 Junio 1992
    ...January 2, 1992). But this policy statement, although germane, is not entitled to deference. See EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1227, 1235, 113 L.Ed.2d 274 (1991) (declining to "defer" to the EEOC construction of Title VII); General Elec. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125, 140-......
  • U.S. v. Black, No. 05 CR 727.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 21 Diciembre 2006
    ...has the authority to "enforce its laws beyond the territorial boundaries of the United States." EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248, 111 S.Ct. 1227, 113 L.Ed.2d 274 (1991); United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 43 S.Ct. 39, 67 L.Ed. 149 (1922) (criminal statutes can apply to act ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 firm's commentaries
  • The Final Breaths of the Alien Tort Statute
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 23 Abril 2013
    ...70 amicus briefs. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kiobel-v-royal-dutch-petroleum/ 7 EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991). 8 Justices Alito and Thomas also reinforced the principles of Sosa v. Alvarez Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), that any further ATS claim t......
  • A Matter Of Semantics: Validus Reinsurance Invalidates Foreign-To-Foreign Withholding
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 30 Junio 2015
    ...Id. at 78. 16 Id. 17 Code § 4371(3). 18 Morrison v. Nat'l Austl. Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247, 255, 130 S.Ct. 2869, 177 L.Ed.2d 535 (2010) 19 499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991), in turn quoting from Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 20 Validus at 12, quoting Morrison Nat'l Australian Bank Ltd.......
  • Update: 'Tourre' Extends SEC’s Reach For Foreign Transactions Involving Domestic Offerings
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 30 Julio 2013
    ...transaction in 2010 for $550 million. 3 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010). 4 Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2877 (quoting EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244 5 Id. at 2888; see id.at 2894 n.11 (Stevens, J., concurring) (quoting Morrison v. Nat'l Austl. Bank Ltd., 547 F.3d 167 , 172 (2d Cir. 2008) ......
  • Update: Tourre Extends SEC's Reach For Foreign Transactions Involving Domestic Offerings
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 16 Septiembre 2013
    ...transaction in 2010 for $550 million. 3 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010). 4 Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2877 (quoting EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244 5 Id. at 2888; see id.at 2894 n.11 (Stevens, J., concurring) (quoting Morrison v. Nat'l Austl. Bank Ltd., 547 F.3d 167 , 172 (2d Cir. 2008) ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
44 books & journal articles
  • DISORDERED LAW: OBAMA TO TRUMP EXECUTIVE BRANCH ORDERS MANDATING NON-ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 85 No. 2, June 2022
    • 22 Junio 2022
    ...order or regulation, an agency's contrary position is accorded no deference whatsoever by the court. See E.E.O.C. v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 257 (1991); Gen. Elec. Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125, 141 (236) See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843-44. Under the "arbitrary and capricious" standa......
  • The law
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Age Discrimination Litigation
    • 28 Abril 2022
    ...EEOC Policy Guidance, but it lacked rulemaking authority over the issue. See 42 U.S.C. §2000e-12(a); EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co. , 499 U.S. 244, 257 (1991). The weeks are counted in the “current year”—i.e., the year that the violation occurred. Crossing years was not contemplated by th......
  • Administering the National Environmental Policy Act
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 45-4, April 2015
    • 1 Abril 2015
    ...the Court’s own interpretation, were not even of suicient weight to rebut a rebuttable presumption, see EEOC v. Arabian Amer. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 256-58 (1991); to (4) inally ignoring a grant of substantive rulemaking authority to EEOC (and two other agencies) in the Americans With Disab......
  • Disability Discrimination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2014 Part V. Discrimination in employment
    • 16 Agosto 2014
    ...properly resort for guidance.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted); Bragdon, 118 S. Ct. at 2207-09; EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co. , 499 U.S. 244, 257-58 (1991); Martin v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n , 499 U.S. 144, 157 (1991); Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson , 477 U......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT