Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000(e), et. seq., prohibits discrimination
on the basis of national origin. See http://www.eeoc.gov/origin/index.html.
The Law Offices of Dawn V. Martin has not been afraid to stand up for the most vulnerable of people
in the country or to pave the road in a developing world of international employment. The firm is
currently litigating a precedent-setting jurisdictional issue involving both equal employment
opportunity law and international law.
Shekoyan v. Sibley International, Inc. On March 15, 2005, Ms. Martin argued before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit the case of Shekoyan v. Sibley International,
217 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2002), 309 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2004), (D.C. Cir. No. 04-7040).
Shekoyan was the first case decided by a U.S. Court of Appeals determining whether a permanent
legal U.S. resident, awaiting citizenship, is protected by U.S. employment discrimination laws if that
employee is sent to abroad, temporarily, by a U.S. employer/government contractor. Mr. Shekoyan,
now a naturalized U.S. citizen, was recruited, hired, trained, and supervised in the U.S. while he
fulfilled a U.S. government contract abroad for a U.S. corporation doing business internationally.
While he was abroad, he maintained his home and his wife, in Washington, D.C., paid U.S. and
D.C. taxes, as well as D.C. unemployment insurance. The company had promised him that if he
fulfilled the contract abroad, it would have a permanent position for him in D.C. when he returned.
After more than a year of indisputably exemplary service, a new supervisor was sent abroad to work
with Mr. Shekoyan. The new supervisor harassed him on the basis of his national origin because he
was not "a real American," and finally fired him. The company "rubber stamped" the termination and
refused to hear or investigate his claims of national origin harassment. The District Court granted
summary judgment to Sibley International, Inc. and Mr. Shekoyan appealed.
Unfortuntely, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. Similar cases in other
jurisdictions have resulted in the same holding. It appears that without an amendment to Title VII,
legal permanent, taxpaying residents of this country will be sent abroad by U.S. companies (which
need their expertise regarding foreign countries) and be unprotected by U.S. law while paying U.S.
taxes to support those laws. The Law Offices of Dawn V. Martin would be pleased to work with any
groups interested in lobbying Congress for such an amendment so that U.S. employers may no longer
discriminate against their U.S. taxpaying employees simply because they have assigned them abroad
to perform work for them.
See:
Mr. Shekoyan's Appellate Brief
Mr. Shekoyan's Reply Brief, in Response to Sibley's Opposition to his Appellate Brief
District Court decision issued March 19, 2004 by Judge Reggie B. Walton,
www.dcd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/2004/Walton/00-2519a.pdf
Memorandum Opinion & Order filed August 19, 2002 by Judge Reggie B. Walton,
www.dcd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/2002/Walton/00-2519.pdf
goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/ summary_0199-763487_ITM&referid=2090
www.dcd.uscourts.gov/02-2251a.pdf
www.dcd.uscourts.gov/00-2519.pdf
www.dcd.uscourts.gov/99ms0137.pdf
www.dcd.uscourts.gov/99-3304.pdf
www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ mi_go2734/is_200403/ai_n6574701
www.taf.org/publications/PDF/apr04qr.pdf
www.taf.org/publications/PDF/oct02qr.pdf
rpweb.ph/ampoy/chronology.htm
www.mgmt.purdue.edu/centers/ ciber/publications/pdf/Campion%20Paper.pdf
www.bna.com/bnabooks/ababna/flsa/2003/adea.doc
www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/ nkk/documents/sept.30.hamdanbrief.pdf
www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/
B1CF2EE2E04EDA6888256E590082F92C/$file/0255340.pdf?openelement
www.uwsa.com/pipermail/uwsa/2002q4/034335.html
on the basis of national origin. See http://www.eeoc.gov/origin/index.html.
The Law Offices of Dawn V. Martin has not been afraid to stand up for the most vulnerable of people
in the country or to pave the road in a developing world of international employment. The firm is
currently litigating a precedent-setting jurisdictional issue involving both equal employment
opportunity law and international law.
Shekoyan v. Sibley International, Inc. On March 15, 2005, Ms. Martin argued before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit the case of Shekoyan v. Sibley International,
217 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2002), 309 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2004), (D.C. Cir. No. 04-7040).
Shekoyan was the first case decided by a U.S. Court of Appeals determining whether a permanent
legal U.S. resident, awaiting citizenship, is protected by U.S. employment discrimination laws if that
employee is sent to abroad, temporarily, by a U.S. employer/government contractor. Mr. Shekoyan,
now a naturalized U.S. citizen, was recruited, hired, trained, and supervised in the U.S. while he
fulfilled a U.S. government contract abroad for a U.S. corporation doing business internationally.
While he was abroad, he maintained his home and his wife, in Washington, D.C., paid U.S. and
D.C. taxes, as well as D.C. unemployment insurance. The company had promised him that if he
fulfilled the contract abroad, it would have a permanent position for him in D.C. when he returned.
After more than a year of indisputably exemplary service, a new supervisor was sent abroad to work
with Mr. Shekoyan. The new supervisor harassed him on the basis of his national origin because he
was not "a real American," and finally fired him. The company "rubber stamped" the termination and
refused to hear or investigate his claims of national origin harassment. The District Court granted
summary judgment to Sibley International, Inc. and Mr. Shekoyan appealed.
Unfortuntely, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. Similar cases in other
jurisdictions have resulted in the same holding. It appears that without an amendment to Title VII,
legal permanent, taxpaying residents of this country will be sent abroad by U.S. companies (which
need their expertise regarding foreign countries) and be unprotected by U.S. law while paying U.S.
taxes to support those laws. The Law Offices of Dawn V. Martin would be pleased to work with any
groups interested in lobbying Congress for such an amendment so that U.S. employers may no longer
discriminate against their U.S. taxpaying employees simply because they have assigned them abroad
to perform work for them.
See:
Mr. Shekoyan's Appellate Brief
Mr. Shekoyan's Reply Brief, in Response to Sibley's Opposition to his Appellate Brief
District Court decision issued March 19, 2004 by Judge Reggie B. Walton,
www.dcd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/2004/Walton/00-2519a.pdf
Memorandum Opinion & Order filed August 19, 2002 by Judge Reggie B. Walton,
www.dcd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/2002/Walton/00-2519.pdf
goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/ summary_0199-763487_ITM&referid=2090
www.dcd.uscourts.gov/02-2251a.pdf
www.dcd.uscourts.gov/00-2519.pdf
www.dcd.uscourts.gov/99ms0137.pdf
www.dcd.uscourts.gov/99-3304.pdf
www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ mi_go2734/is_200403/ai_n6574701
www.taf.org/publications/PDF/apr04qr.pdf
www.taf.org/publications/PDF/oct02qr.pdf
rpweb.ph/ampoy/chronology.htm
www.mgmt.purdue.edu/centers/ ciber/publications/pdf/Campion%20Paper.pdf
www.bna.com/bnabooks/ababna/flsa/2003/adea.doc
www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/ nkk/documents/sept.30.hamdanbrief.pdf
www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/
B1CF2EE2E04EDA6888256E590082F92C/$file/0255340.pdf?openelement
www.uwsa.com/pipermail/uwsa/2002q4/034335.html
| Law Offices of Dawn V. Martin National Origin and Protection for Legal Permanent U.S. Residents Working Abroad |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
