filesusairways

InternationalLaborandEmploymentLaw:TheContinuingConflictsByJosephZ.
Flemingn1October2007Introduction-PartI:TheWorldWeLiveInThomasL.
Friedmaninhisbook,TheWorldisFlat:ABriefHistoryofthe20-FirstCentury(FARRARSTRAUSANDGIROUX,NewYork2005)atpage114quotedthefollowingAfricanproverb:EverymorninginAfricaagazellewakesup.
Itknowsitmustrunfasterthanthefastestlionoritwillbekilled.
Everymorningalionwakesup.
Itknowsitmustoutruntheslowestgazelleoritwillstarvetodeath.
Itdoesn'tmatterwhetheryouarealionoragazelle.
Whenthesuncomesup,youbetterstartrunning.
Ifthisisnotasufficientmetaphorinconnectionwiththedifficultiesthetransportationsystemshavehadwiththeircompetition,thenanotherquotefromFriedman'sbook,discussingtheabilityoftheUnitedStatestoobtainacompetitiveadvantagebecauseofitslaborlaws,certainlyis:TheUnitedStatesalsohasamongthemostflexiblelawsintheworld.
Theeasieritistofiresomeoneinadyingindustry,theeasieritistohiresomeoneinarisingindustrythatnooneknewwouldexistfiveyearsearlier.
Thisisagreatasset,especiallywhenyoucomparethesituationintheUnitedStatestoinflexible,rigidlyregulatedlabormarketslikeGermany's,fullofgovernmentrestrictionsonhiringandfiring.
Flexibilitytoquicklydeploylaborandcapitalwherethegreatestopportunityexists,andtheabilitytoquicklyredeployitiftheearlierdeploymentisnolongerprofitable,isessentialinaflatteningworld.
IfyousurvivecompetitionwithintheUnitedStatesyoucanthenaddressthecompetitionoutsideoftheUnitedStates.
Thematterofsurvivalofthefittestisbecomingevenmorecomplicated.
JustrecentlythePresidentoftheUnitedStatesurgedAmericanstowelcome,ratherthanfear,Indiaasaneconomiccompetitor;and,thePresidentdefendedtheoutsourcingofAmericanjobstoIndiaastherealityofaglobaleconomystatingthatn1Theviewsexpressedaresolelythoseoftheauthorandshouldnotbeattributedtotheauthor'sfirmoritsclients.
theUnitedStatesshouldfocusonnewmarketsandnoting:"Peopledolosejobsasaresultofglobalization,andit'spainfulforthosewholosejobs.
"Mr.
BushsaidatameetingwithyoungentrepreneursattheIndianSchoolofBusiness,oneofthepremierschoolsofitskindinIndia.
Nonetheless,thepresidentsaid,'globalizationprovidesgreatopportunities'".
SeeElizabethBumiller"Bush,inHigh-TechCenter,UrgesAmericanstoWelcomeCompetitionfromIndia",NEWYORKTIMES,Saturday,March4,2006pageA-5,column1.
TherearemajorfactorsimpactingtheUStransportationindustryduetoglobalization:1.
USairlinesareincreasinglyforcedtocompetewithnotonlynewentrieswithintheUS,but,also,newentriesininternationaltransportation.
Withthecostoffuelincreasing,thenationstateswhichhavehadalockonfuelmay,increasingly,becomeevenmoreimportantcompetitors.
InsofarasgovernmentalentitiescontrollingothermarketsareconsideringopeningupmarketstheyaredemandingaccesstonotonlytheUSbuttherighttoownershipofUSbusiness,includingcarriers.
NotonlywillEuropeanUnionstatesbenegotiatingwiththeUS,buttheywillbeamongothersnegotiatingwiththeUS.
Thus,controlsastoaviationintheUSarebeingderegulatedandregulatedatthesametime.
2.
ThetransportationindustrywithintheUnitedStatesontherailsisequallyimpacted,asmarketcenterswhichchosetherailshavebeenimpactedbecauseofinternationalevents.
Businessdealingsintheglobalizedmarketplace,andtheiraccompanyinglabor-managementrelationships,werebecomingcomplexandevolvingsorapidly,beforeSeptember11,2002,thattheyblurredconceptsofnationalityandcitizenship,whichhistoricallyhadinfluencedthedeterminationofapplicablelaw.
Ina"post9/11world"therearenewconsiderations.
Theresultscreateanewmeaningforthetermconflictslaw.
Recentlyattentionhasfocusedonthequestionsastowhetherglobalcapitalismisanailingsystem.
Arecentreviewofnewbooksdiscussingthis,byMichaelHirsch"DollarswithoutBorders",intheNewYorkTimesBookReview,Sunday,March5,2006atpage13,notedthefollowing:"Globalcapitalismisanailingsystem.
Themainquestioniswhethertheillnessiscurableorterminal.
Whathasbecomeespeciallyworrisomeinrecentyearsistheincreasinglyunequalrelationshipbetweenlaborandcapital.
Thesetwooldrivalshavelongbeenatodds,ofcourse,oftenviolently.
Buttherehavealsobeenextendedperiodsofpeace.
"AsJeffryFriedenwritesinhismagisterialhistory,'GlobalCapitalism,'duringthehigh-growthdecadesafterWorldWarIIlaborandcapitalexistedinanuneasybutprosperousequilibrium.
AndduringtheearliergoldenageofglobalizationbeforeWorldWarI,hereports,laborandcapital'workedbeautifully'togetheronaworldwidescale.
Asfreetradesupplantedmercantilisminthemid-tolate19thcentury,barrierstotradeandimmigrationfellatroughlythesametime.
'UnproductivePolishandPortuguesepeasantswhocouldnotcompetewithCanadianandArgentinegrainfarmers,'Friedensays,'becameproductiveurbanworkersinWarsawandLisbonorimmigratedtobecomeproductivefactoryworkersinTorontoorfarmworkersonthepampas.
'Streamsofinvestmentfollowed.
Inthelastquarter-centuryorso,however,capitalhasleftlaborbehindtochokeinthedustofthosepampas.
OrsoJeffFauxarguesin'TheGlobalClassWar,'amuchdarkerbookthatcharacterizesthepresenteraasastrugglebetweena'globalgoverningclass'andeverybodyelse.
Fauxisclearlycorrectthatthebalanceofpowerbetweenlaborandcapitalhasshifteddramatically.
Today,investmentcapitalmovesatblindingspeed,whilelaborstillmustgobyboat,trainandplane--andthat'sifit'slucky.
Withmuchtougherimmigrationrestrictionsthanexistedacenturyago,laborismoreoftenconfinedtoitshomemarkets,waitinganxiouslytoseeifglobe-hoppingcapitaldeignstocomeitsway.
Introduction-PartII:TheWorldUnionsandPlaintiffs'DesireTheworldweliveininvolvesglobalization,andthemovementofcapitaltootherareaswheremarketsandmeansofproduction(includinglabor)maybemorecost-effective,thaninthoseareaswheretherearehigherlaborexpenses.
Thebasicobjectivesofunionsandplaintiff-employees,incaseswheretheywanttoproceedagainstmanagement,aresimilartothoseofmanagement;and,theyaremotivatedbyeconomics.
Unionsoftenseektocontroltheirlabormonopoly,thatU.
S.
laborlawsprovidethem;and,theycannotdoso,unlesstheycontroltherepresentationoftheemployees,andtheabilitytoprotecttheemployeesandpromotetheirinterests.
Unionsbenefitthroughincreasedmembershipandduesrevenue.
Theemployeeswhofeelthattheyhavedisputeswithmanagement,suchasthosewhichrelatetoemploymentdiscriminationclaimsthatareeithercivilrightsclaims,orsometimesclaimsagainstthemanagementandtheunions,wanttobeabletosueandreachthedeeppocketsofmanagement.
Theyalsodonotwanttobebarredbyanybarricadeswhichcouldpreventthemfromobtainingtheirobjectives(which,inpart,areremediestoeliminatetheirproblemsandwhichmaybenotjusteliminationofdiscriminationbut,also,monetaryreliefpaymentoftheirattorneys'fees).
ThisgenerallymeansthatunionsandmanagementwanttoexpandthelawsoftheUnitedStatesbeneficialtothemwheretheyareoperating,andemployed,tocoveremploymentissuesimpactingtheminotherareasoftheworld.
Setforthbelowareillustrationsofbasicunionobjectivesasshownbycasesandauthorities:1.
Uniondesiretofollowthework,andnotallowtheshiftofworkabroadtoreduce,oreliminate,thelabormanagementrelationshipswhichtheunionshave.
Abasicdesireofunionizationistoapplythelawthatismostfavorabletothatoftheunions,andthosetheyrepresent.
U.
S.
unionswantU.
S.
laborlawstoapplytoAmericancompaniesandthosethatareoperatingwithintheUnitedStatesnotonlyintheUnitedStates,butabroad.
UnionsarguethattheinterestsoftheUnitedStatesandtheirmembersareadverselyaffectedifmanagementcanescaperesponsibilitiestounions.
MostunionsseekextraterritorialapplicationofU.
S.
lawsanddecisionsthatcoveroperations,andsupportcourtjurisdictionoveractivitieswhichhaveoccurredoutsidetheterritoriallimitsoftheUnitedStates.
Therealityisthatevenexaminationoftheunionpositioninvolvesacertainamountofrecognitionthatthecaselawdoesnotfavortheunionposition.
MostcourtdecisionshaveseverelylimitedthescopeofU.
S.
laws,asshownbythisarticle,astooperationsoutsideoftheUnitedStates.
Forthebasicanalysisoftheunionpositionandanalysis,see,ApplicabilityofU.
S.
LaborLawstoIssues,DisputesandRelationshipsthatIncludeForeignConductorComponentsbyStephenB.
Moldof(thearticleisintheCourseMaterialsoftheALI-ABAAirline,RailroadandEmploymentCourseBook,October2007).
Asdemonstratedhere,uniondesiresaregenerallylimitedbyvirtueofthelegalandfactualrealities.
ThelegalrealitiesinvolvethefactthattheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtisquiteconservativeandincreasinglyconservative,andthatis(forunions)goingtobeanincreasingrealityashasbeenshownbylegalanalysisandcases.
Seee.
g.
RonaldDworkin"TheSupremeCourtPhalanx"NewYorkRev.
ofBooks,Sept.
27,2007atpg.
92(Vol.
LIV.
No.
4).
Inaddition,foreigncarriersareoperatingoutsideoftheUnitedStates;and,theUnitedStatesisnotthesoleairlinemarketintheworld.
ThismeansthateveniftheU.
S.
carriersthroughcaselaw,orevenlegislation,wererequiredtorecognizeunionsonallU.
S.
systems,thatwouldnotbeassignificantavictoryasitmighthavebeenseveraldecadesago.
ItmightevencausethefurtherdeclineoftheinfluenceofAmericancarriers.
2.
Theplaintiffs'positionisdemonstratedbythebasicconceptinOfori-Tenkorangvs.
AmericanIntern.
Group,Inc.
,460F.
3d296(2ndCir.
2006),(the"AIGcase")asignificantdecisionoftheSecondCircuit.
AppendixA.
AplaintiffworkinginSouthAfricamaintainedthathecouldbringanactionunder42U.
S.
C.
1981;and,helostastoactivityabroadwhichwasnotcoveredbytheU.
S.
law.
However,thecourtdidruledthattothedegreethatcertainemploymentactionsoccurredwithintheUnitedStates,whichmighthaveimpactedtheplaintiff(sincehewaspostedinforeignnationbuthadoriginallybeenemployedintheUnitedStatesandcertainbenefitswerecontrolledwithintheUnitedStates),thecourtcouldhavejurisdiction.
Thisisasimilartypeofanalysisappliedtothecaselawinterpretingunionagreements,asisnoted.
Certaincivilrightsclaimshavebeenexpandedbylegislation,overrulingcourtcasesthathaverestrictedjurisdictionoverforeignemployeesofU.
S.
companiespostedinforeignlocations.
Thatanalysisisprovidedbelow.
Nevertheless,aswiththeunions,theharshrealityisthatthemorecontrolemployeescanexerciseovertheirconditionsabroad,thelessemployersmaytendtouseAmericanemployeespostedabroad.
Theglobaleconomyandtheinternetallowsettingupoperationsabroad,whichseveraldecadesagocouldnothaveoccurred.
Introduction-PartIII:TheWorld-TheManagementMayWanttoLiveInMostU.
S.
employers,despitetheirabilitytomoveabroad,recognizethatthereareadvantagestoutilizationoftheU.
S.
workforce.
Theadvantagesaretoolongtolistinthisarticle,butinclude:continuityofservice;and,abilitytoworkunderU.
S.
standards(whichwhileexpensivealsoarebeneficialintermsofprovidingprotection).
Anexampleofthedifficultiesofbeingabletoshipsomethingabroad,intermsofproblems,arisesinconnectionwiththedailyheadlinesaboutproblemswithmerchandisefromChina.
MarkLandlerandIvarEkman,"BuckingAnIndustryTrend,IndustriesRemaininEurope"NewYorkTimespg.
C-1,col.
2,Tues.
,Sept.
18,2007(discussing"recallsofmillionsofChinese-madetoys,mostlybecauseofleadpaint").
Therearealsosecurityissuesinothercountries.
Somecountrieshaveprivacyrestrictions,whichprecludeobtaininginformationthattheemployermightwantinawayofbackground;and,othercountrieslackabilitytopolicethebackground,toensurethattheemployeesarewhotheyindicatetheyare.
TheUnitedStatesexperiencesthesamesituation,inconnectionwithobviousdailyreportsaboutimmigrationissues,andrecentsocialsecuritymatchletters--whicharediscussedelsewhereinthesematerials--demonstratethatidentitiesarenotthateasytodetermineintheUnitedStates.
SeeMarthaSchoonoverandAlixMattinglyarticleon"SocialSecurityNo-MatchRegulations"inthesematerials.
TheUnitedStates,however,isstillfaraheadofmanyothercountriesinconnectionwithmanysuchareasandstandards.
Thus,thereareadvantagesforretainingoperationsintheUnitedStatesand,also,ensuringthatthestandardsintheUnitedStatesapplyabroad.
Inanarticleby,EricLiptonandGardinerHarris,"InTurnaround,IndustriesSeekU.
S.
Regulations,"TheNewYorkTimes,Sunday,September16,2007,pg.
1A,Col.
5,itwasnotedU.
S.
industriessoughtstandards(albeitforvariousreasons;andmotives):Theconsequencesforconsumers,though,arenotyetclear.
Thetacticalshiftbyindustrygroupsismotivatedbyaconfluenceofself-interests:growingcompetitionfrominexpensiveimportsthatdonotmeetvoluntarystandards,andadesiretoheadoffliabilitylawsuitsandpre-empttoughstatelawsorlegalactionsthatwerearesponsetolaissez-faireBushadministrationpolicies.
ConcernsthatDemocratscouldsoonexpandtheircontrolinWashingtonhavealsopromptedmanufacturersorproducerstoseekregulationsthattheyconsidertheleastburdensome,regulatoryexpertssay.
See,also,StephenCastleandDanBilefsky"EuropeReconsidersPlantoRelaxConsumerSafetyRules"NewYorkTimes,Tuesday,Sept.
18,2007pg.
C4,col.
1("LiketheUnitedStatestheEuropeanUnionisconsideringrequiringtoymanufacturerstohavealltheirnewproductstestedinindependentlaboratories--amovethatwouldaddtocosts.
")Nevertheless,therearetradeoffsforall.
Thevariousinvestmentpotentialsarecomplextoo.
ForeigncarriersandforeigncompaniescansetupbusinessesthatenterintotheUnitedStates,andotherareas.
SeeJeffBailey"ANewLow-FareAirlineonaWeb-OnlyApproach"NYTimes,Wed.
,April25,2007pg.
C-12,col.
1(discussingSkybusAirlinesandRyannair);DanielMichaels"QatarAirwaysOrders80JetsfromAirbus"WallStreetJournal,Thurs,May31,2007,pg.
B-6,col.
1;andseeLeslieWayne"TheRealOwnerofAllThosePlanes"NYTimes,Thurs,May10,2007pg.
C-1,col.
2(discussingStevenUdvar-HazyheadofInternationalLeaseFinancewhichleasesnearly"halfoftheairplanesflyingtoday"andwhodoesmorebusinesswithnon-U.
S.
carriers).
TherealsoareincreasingsituationsinwhichforeigncapitalinvestsinU.
S.
companieswhich,then,createbusinessesandentitiesabroad.
ArecentexampleofthiswastheinvestmentbytheChinesegovernmentinBlackstone.
See,"ChinaPutsCashToWorkinDealwithBlackstone,"WallStreetJournal,Monday,May21,2007,pg.
1A,Col.
5("Chinasaiditwouldinvest$3billioninBlackstone.
")RecentlyChinagaveBlackstonetheopportunitytotakeoveramajorindustryinChina.
See,DeutschePresse-ArgenturgGmbH2007confirmingthat:"TheU.
S.
PrivateEquityFirm,TheBlackstoneGroup,onMonday,September10,2007wasgrantedaninvestmentofupto$600Millionfora20%stakeinChinesechemicals,TheChinaNationalBluestarCorporationknownas("Bluestar").
BluestarwasawhollyownedsubsidiarywithChinaNationalChemicalCorporation(Chemchina),andthearticlepointedoutthatthisisthefirstinvestmentsincethe"Beijinggovernmentpaidaround3billiondollarsinMayfora9.
4%stakeintheU.
S.
investmentgroup.
"U.
S.
investmentgroupscanbeasourceoffundingandattractiveinvestmentsforthoseinforeignnations.
ForeignnationsmaythenallowentitieswhichtheyhaveinvestedintohaveaccesstotheirmarketsasanadditionalwayofobtainingAmericanknow-howandmanagementskills.
Thereisnoreasonwhybusinessentities,orevenforeigncountries,cannotinvestinU.
S.
entities,orcreateentitiesabroadthattradeintheirmarkets,whicharecontrolledbyU.
S.
investors(andwhich,inturn,mayrunorhavesomeinterestininternationaloperations).
Unionshaverecognizedthis;and,theyareincreasinglyanalyzinghowtocopewithsuchissues.
See,"What'sOffline:OutsourcingthePicketLine,"NYTimes,Sat.
,March11,2006pg.
B5,col.
3.
(SEIUPresidentStern"envisionsafederationofworldwideunions,organizedbysector,whichwouldbringtobearcross-borderunionleveragetoorganizeentireindustriesratherthanindividualcompanies,therebyliftingstandardsofworkers").
SeealsoTimJohnson"LaborUnions:U.
S.
LaborLeadersWooChina'sFederation,MiamiHerald,Wed.
May23,2007pg.
1-C,col.
2.
Fortheforegoingreasons,therearewaysbywhichU.
S.
investorsandbusinessesmaybeasaggressiveastheircounterpartsare.
Nodoubtunionshaveallengagedininternationalorganizing;and,nodoubtbusinesseswillencountersuchorganizationalefforts.
Thus,thefollowinganalysisisoftheexistinglaw,butitmaychange.
Eventhepositionsofthepartiesmaychange.
Thereareperiodswhenunionsandplaintiffsseemtohavetheadvantage,orseemtolosetheadvantage.
Therewill,also,beperiodswhenthemanagementwillseemtohavetheadvantage,orlosetheadvantage.
Thekeyistoappreciate,thevariouslawsthatcanapplyandthewaysbywhichtheycanbeimpacted.
Notwithstandingissuesraisedbytheforegoingitisbecomingincreasinglyimportanttounderstandthattheconceptofglobalizationwhichisaffectingmarketsand,inturn,labor,takesplaceinthecontextofdifferentnationstateswhichhavedifferentlaws.
Theresultcreatesconflict.
Thisisananalysisofextraterritorialapplicationofemploymentlaws,includingthosewhichregulatecollectivebargainingandindividualrights,withanemphasisonthelawsoftheU.
S.
Agridlock,orwhatweevencouldrefertohereasa"lawlock",canresult--inthateachcountrycanseektoregulatetheaffairsofmulti-nationalcorporationsandcorporationsinglobalcommerce(baseduponthenewtechnologies)inamannerthatcreatesanewneedforresolvingwhatweretraditionalconflictquestions.
I.
TheU.
S.
LaborandEmploymentOverviewInaclassictextbookontheConflictsofLawbyE.
E.
Cheatham,E.
N.
Griswold,W.
L.
M.
Reese,M.
Rosenberg(UniversityCasebookSeries,Brooklyn,TheFoundationPress,Inc.
1964),theauthors,usingasenseofhumor,introducedtheirtextwithaphotographoftheCourthouseontheislandinTobagowithaquotationfromaleadingEnglishcase,Buchananv.
RuckerCourtofKingsBench1808,9East192,inwhichLordEllenborough,C.
J.
asks:CantheislandofTobagopassalawtobindtherightsofthewholeworldWouldtheworldsubmittosuchanassumedjurisdictionIntheprocessofexaminingthelawsoftheUnitedStatesandtheirextraterritorialapplication,asanillustration,wearenotattemptingtobeprovincialbut,rather,recognizingthatthisseminarissponsoredbytheAmericanLawInstitute-AmericanBarAssociation.
Ifwearegoingtoanalyzealegalsystemanddosoinamannerthatisnotonlyanalyticalbutcritical(andintendedtocausedebate)theauthorproposestousetheauthor'scountryasanillustrationasopposedtooffendingothers.
Thepurposeofthisinitialoutlineistodiscussconcepts.
Casecitationsfordiscussionofspecificextraterritorialissuesarealsoinotherarticlesinthiscoursebook.
SetforthbelowisaninitialoutlineofthebasicUnitedStateslegalconceptsthatrelateto"extraterritoriality":A.
Unlessastatuteisspecificallygivenextraterritorialeffect,thepresumptionisthatitdoesnotapplyoutsideoftheUnitedStates.
EEOCv.
ArabianAmericanOilCo.
,499U.
S.
244,55FEP449(1991).
InEEOCv.
ArabianAmericanOilCo.
,supra,theSupremeCourtheldthatTitleVIIoftheCivilRightsActof1964,asamended,didnotapplyextraterritoriallytoregulatetheemploymentpracticesofUnitedStatesemployersemployingU.
S.
Citizensabroad.
OverridingthisSupremeCourtdecision,CongressamendedTitleVIItoreversetheCourt'sdecisionandincludedwithinTitleVIIprotectionU.
S.
citizenswhoworkoverseasforU.
S.
businesses.
SeeSection109(a)oftheCivilRightsActof1991,TitleVII,42U.
S.
C.
2000e(f)1991).
See,also,Carnerov.
BostonScientific,433F3d1(1stCir.
2006)(Sarbanes-Oxleydidnothaveextra-territorialapplication).
B.
WhenCongresslegislateswithanintenttoexpressextraterritorialimpact,thecourtsintheUnitedStateswillrecognizethatintentbutonlyiftheworkisforaU.
S.
controlledcompany.
See,e.
g.
,Gantcharv.
UnitedAirlines,1995U.
S.
Dist.
LEXIS5358(N.
D.
Ill.
Apr.
20,1995).
C.
Whenthereisagrayarea,theCourtswillalsodeterminetheresultsbyjudicialinterpretation.
Id.
See,also,Dentyv.
SmithKlineBeechamCorp.
,907F.
Supp.
879(E.
D.
Pa.
,Nov.
6,1995).
D.
WhentherehasnotbeenaCongressionalexpression,judicialinterpretationcanresultinapplicationoflawsinafashionthatstillimpactsinanextraterritorialmanner.
SeeALPAv.
TACA,748F.
2d965(5thCir.
1984),cert.
denied,417U.
S.
1100(1985).
Seealso,theAIGcase(AppendixA).
E.
Whentherehasbeenanintenttohaveextraterritorialimpact,thecourtscaninterpretthelawinamannerthatallowsdefensesandqualifications:1.
Therecanbequalificationswithinthelaw.
Theclassiccaseisthedecisionnottoapplycivilrightslawsprohibitingreligiousdiscriminationtoanairline'spilotqualificationswhentheywouldapplytoanairlinethatfliesintoMeccawhichcannotallownon-Muslimpilots,becausetheywillbebeheaded.
SeealsoKernv.
DynalectronCorporation,577F.
Supp.
1196(N.
Tex.
1983),aff'd,746F.
2d810,40EPD36,317(5thCir.
1984)(holdingconversationtoIslamwasaB.
F.
O.
Q.
forapilotflyinghelicopterstoMeccasincenon-MoslemsflyingintoMeccaare,ifcaught,beheaded.
)2.
ThecourtscaneliminateextraterritorialeffectwhenitwouldcreateaconflictwithlawsofothercountriestoenforcelegaldisputesbaseduponUnitedStateslawundertheConstitutionaltheoryinvolvingtheActofStateDoctrine.
See,e.
g.
BancoNacionaldeCubav.
Sabbatino,376U.
S.
398(1964)(applyingthe"ActofStateDoctrine").
TheActofStateDoctrineprecludesinquiryintothevalidityofpublicactsofarecognizedforeignpowercommittedwithinitsownterritory.
3.
Therecanbeotherdefenses.
Seethe"ForeignCompulsion"defense.
ALPAv.
TACA,supraat971-972.
ThedifficultythatwehaveintermsofaccessingtheneedtoavoidglobalgridlockisthatwehaveasourstartingplaceourexperiencesasattorneysintheUnitedStates.
Itisimportanttounderstandtheinternationalflavoroftheissuethatgoeswiththeinternationallawsrelatingtolaborandemploymentdisputes.
Thiscanbedonebyappreciatingtheconceptofmulti-nationalbargainingandlitigationarisingoutofitaswellasthefactorsthatcausethistypeofbargainingand,then,understandingthefactorsthatrelatetothebargaining.
Thesepointsareoutlinedbelow.
II.
ThePre-9-11ConceptsRelatingtoCross-BorderCollectiveBargainingTwointerestingbooksprovidesomeinsightsastotheimportanceofcross-borderbargainingandrelatedissues.
A.
InthefirstbookFaster:TheAccelerationofJustAboutEverythingbyJamesGleick(PantheonBooks,NewYork1999),theauthoranalyzestheaccelerationofourageinnotonlyglobaltermsbut,also,astotechnologicalfactorschangingourlives.
Asanironicandratherperversehumorousinsight,theauthorstartswithaquotationfromWoodyAllen(whichprovidestheultimateironyintermsofthewayspeedcanenableustobeindifferentlocationsforthepurposeofgettingthingsdonebutinamannerthatmightbeself-defeating):I'mgoingtokillmyself.
IshouldgotoParisandjumpofftheEiffelTower.
I'llbedead.
Youknow,infact,ifIgettheConcorde,Icouldbedeadthreehoursearlier,whichwouldbeperfect.
Orwaitaminute.
It--withthetimechange,IcouldbealiveforsixhoursinNewYorkbutdeadthreehoursinParis.
Icouldgetthingsdone,andIcouldalsobedead.
--WoodyAllenInthesecondbook,TheLexusandOliveTreebyThomasL.
Friedman(FarrarStrausGiroux--NewYork1999),thereiscomprehensiveanalysisoftheprocessofglobalizationandtheintegrationofcapitaltechnologyandinformationacrossnationalborders--thatnotonlyaffectsmulti-nationalbargainingbutallotherfacetsofourlives.
Theauthormakesthepointthatglobalizationisatermthatcanbedemonizedandmisunderstoodandthatmulti-nationalbargainingcanbemuchmorethanwhatispresentedatthebargainingtable;sinceitmaydependuponsociety'sperceptionsofaverycomplicatedprocess.
AsFriedmandescribesit:Politicianshavetobeawarethat,foralotofreasons,itisveryeasytodistortanddemonizeglobalizationandendup,asClintondid,whereevenifyouarerightontheeconomics,youlosecontrolofthepolitics,soitworksagainstyouinsteadofforyou.
Peoplewhoarethebiggestlosersfromglobalization,workerswhohavelosttheirjobstorobotsorforeignfactories,knowexactlywhotheyare.
Thismakesthemveryeasytomobilizeagainstmoreintegration,technologyorfreetrade.
Peoplewhoarebeneficiariesofglobalization,ofmoreopentradeandofforeigninvestment,oftendon'tknowit.
Theyoftendon'tmaketheconnectionsbetweenglobalizationandtheirrisingstandardsofliving,andthereforetheyaredifficulttomobilize.
Haveyoueverheardaworkerinamicrochipfactorysay,"Boy,amIlucky.
Thankstoglobalization,soaringdemandforAmericanhigh-techexports,thelaborshortageforskilledworkersinthiscountry,andrisingexpectationsinthedevelopingworld,mybosshadtogivemearaise.
"Anotherreasonglobalizationiseasytodistortisthatpeopledon'tunderstandthatitislargelyatechnology-drivenphenomenon,notatrade-drivenone.
WehadareceptionistattheWashingtonbureauofTheNewYorkTimes,butthecompanyeliminatedherjob.
Shedidn'tloseherjobtoaMexican,shelostittoamicrochip--themicrochipthatoperatesthevoice-maildeviceinallofourofficephones.
Thefactis,thatmicrochipwouldhavetakenawayherjobifwehadhadnotradewithMexico.
Thatmicrochipwouldhavetakenawayherhadwehadathirty-foot-highwallstretchingfromoneendoftheMexican-Americanbordertotheother.
Butpoliticiansdon'twanttoacknowledgethis.
Noneofthemisgoingtostandupandsay:"Iwantyoutogetupnow,unplugyourphone,gotoyourwindow,throwyouroutphoneoutandshout:'I'mnotgoingtotakeitanymore!
SaveAmericanjobs!
Banvoicemail!
Potatochips,yes!
Microchips,no!
"That'snotawinningpoliticalmessage.
It'smucheasierinsteadtorailagainstMexicansandforeignfactories.
And,ofcourse,foreignfactoriesdo,insomeinstances,takeawayjobs(butnotnearlyasmanyastechnologydestroysandcreates),sothereisjustenoughtruththeretomakeforsomeveryemotive,dangerouspolitics.
Andbecauseforeignworkersandfactoriesareeasytosee,andmicrochipsarenot,theyloommuchlargerinourconsciousnessastheproblem.
Ifwedon'teducationthepublicabouttherealnatureoftheworldtodayanddemystifyglobalization--theSeparatistswillalwaysexploitthisconfusionfortheirownends.
In1998,PresidentClintoncouldnotgetNAFTAexpandedtoChilebecauseofaunion-ledminority,whobelievedthattheywerenotbenefitingfrommorefreetrade,wereveryactiveinopposingtheexpansionofNAFTA,whilethemajoritythatwasbenefitingfromexpandedfreetradeneverunderstoodwhotheywereandthereforenevergotmobilizedtodefendtheirinterests.
Friedman,supra,atpages357-358.
Itisalsoimportanttounderstandwhatcausestheneedtobeconcernedaboutcross-borderbargainingimplications.
Whiletheairlineandrailroadindustriesarenotenjoyingaffluenttimes,thereareotherindustriesthataremuchworseoff.
Thisbringsustothesecondconceptintermsoffactorswhichmightcausecross-borderbargainingandapplicationoflaws.
B.
FactorsThatAreRelevantForEvaluationInConnectionWithCross-BorderBargaining.
JohnMcPheeinLookingforaShip(FarrarStrausGiroux,NewYork1990),atpages11-13,notedthattheUnitedStatesMerchantMarine,acollectiveenterpriseofcompetingprivatecompaniesflyingtheAmericanflagonsternsoftheirshipsandemployingAmericancitizencrewsandtransportingcargothroughouttheworld,oncehadshipsnumberinginthethousands.
Itwascompetitivelyoutbidbyshipsunderforeignflags;and,itwasreducedtocarryinglessthanfivepercentofallocean-goingAmericancargointhemid-1980's.
McPheedescribedhisinterviewattheNationalMaritimeUnionHall(whichhadmovedinthelate1980'sfromManhattantoSavannah)showingthedisastersufferedbytheprivatecompanieswasalsosufferedbytheunion(atpage13):TheN.
M.
U.
hallinSavannahisaquarterthesizeoftheoneinthewarehouseinNewYork--asmallfreestandingbuildingafewblocksfromtheSavannahRiver.
Youstepinoffthestreetandshowyourkillercard.
Ifasailordoesn'thaveone,hemaybeinsomedifficulty.
WhenIwasthereonetime,BarbaraEvans,thedispatcher,said,"SomedayI'mgoingtobeasocialworker,becausethatiswhatIamnow.
"ShementionedsailorswhocamelookingforshipsandsleptonparkbenchesuntiltheymovedtotheInnerCityNightShelter.
Shementionedasailorlivingunderahouse.
ThesituationinconnectionwiththeMerchantMarineexistsinconnectionwithotheroperations.
DouglasFrantzinanarticletitledCruiseLinesProfitFromFriendsinCongress,NewYorkTimes,Friday,February19,1999,page1,notedthefollowing:Theworld'slargestcruisecompany,theCarnivalCorporation,earned$2billioninprofitsoverthelastthreeyears.
Butthecompany,withheadquartershereintwomultistorybuildingsonCarnivalPlace,paidlessthan1percentinincometaxeseventhoughitsearningsexceededthoseofmanyFortune500companies.
RoyalCaribbeanCruises,thesecond-largestcruisecompany,whoseheadquartersoverlookthePortofMiami,reportedprofitsof$657millionoverthesametime.
Itsfinancialstatementsdonotevenincludealineforincometaxes.
Doingbusinessunderadecades-oldloopholeintheFederaltaxcode,andprotectedbyanincreasinglypowerfullobbyingforce,the17majorcruiselinespaypracticallynoincometaxeventhoughtheyarebasedinthiscountryand90percentoftheirpassengersareAmericans.
Thecruiselines,allofthemregisteredinforeigncountries,donotobservethenation'slaborlaws,minimumwagelawandmanyenvironmentalandsafetyregulations.
Justlastfall,byhavingasenatorinsertasinglewordintheFederalbudgetbill,the17cruiselineswonanexemptionfromimmigrationfeesworth$20millionayear.
Inanamendmenttoanotherbill,aCongressmanprotectedtheforeign-registeredcruiselines'monopolyoncovetedpermitstosailintoGlacierBayNationalParkinAlaska.
***InCongress,apotentialbattleisbrewingonseveralfronts,includingtheforeigncruiseships'majoradvantage:whiletheyearntheirprofitsfromtheUnitedStates,theyavoidnearlyallincometaxesbyregisteringasforeigncorporationsandsailingunderforeignflags.
Theyalsobuildtheirgiantfloatingresortsoverseas.
Thereare,astheforegoingarticlenotes,legislativereviewstoevaluatethesituation.
Thereare,also,othertypesofactions.
Asanillustration,theBNA'sDAILYLABORREPORTNo.
43,"UnionGroupUrgesWorldwideStandardsforMinimumWages,ConditionsonShips,"Friday,March5,1999,reported:Inadramaticbidtoboostwagesandworkingconditionsforseafarersworldwide,theInternationalTransportWorkers'Federationisvisitingportsthroughouttheworldwithaformer"flagofconvenience"cargovesselthathasbeentransformedintoafloatingexhibitdepictingwhatunionofficialstermedFOCships'"deplorable"recordonsafetyandworkers'rights.
Thereisapatterndevelopingtochallengeoverseasoperationsbyusingconsumercomplaintsandpublicpressure.
Forexample,BNA'sDAILYLABORREPORTNo.
49,NikeAgreestoIndependentMonitoringofOverseasFacilitiesifCompetitorsGoAlong,Friday,March15,1999,noted:ShoegiantNikeInc.
,oneofmanymanufacturersthathasbeencriticizedbyuniversitystudentsforusingoverseassweatshopstomanufactureproductsthatcarryuniversitylogos,hasagreedtorevealthelocationsofitsoverseasfactoriesandtoallowindependentmonitorstoinspectthemifitscompetitorsagreetodothesame.
Theirony,ofcourse,isthatwhathappenedintheUnitedStatescouldhappeninanyothernation-state'sshippingoperation.
Ultimately,therealityisthatthesameinterrelationshipwhichallowssuchcross-bordermovementprovidesthosewhohavelosttheopportunitytoserveasemployersorlabororganizations(oremployees)opportunitiestoseekredresswhentheglobalinterrelationshipreturnstothevenuetomarketgoodsorservices,inwhichtheyarestilllocated.
As,thehumorist,JamesThurber,noted"Manismovingtoofastmovinginaworldthatisround.
Soontherewillbeagreatrear-endcollisionandmanwillfindthatwhathithimfrombehindwasmankind.
"Everybodyisentitledtotheequalopportunitytohavearear-endcollision,iftheyarenotcarefulastohowtheyworkouttheirissues.
Speedingbeyondthecontrolofthelawsmaybepossible,butthereisalwaystherealitythatthelawsmaycatchup,inamannerthatisacollisionratherthananegotiatedarrangementacceptabletoall.
Thereareanumberoffactorsoutlinedbelowthatshouldbeconsideredinconnectionwithevaluationofbargainingintheairlineandrailroadindustriesintermsofinternationalimplications.
C.
FactorsThatRelatetoCross-BorderBargainingandImpactSuchBargaining.
1.
TheRegulatoryFactors.
a.
Controls,suchasroutecontrolsinitiallyestablishedbytheCABornowtheDOTforairlinesandopenskiesissues,ICCissues,orlicensingfortechnologicalcommunicationssystems.
b.
Antitrustcontrols.
c.
Employmentandlaborlawcontrols.
(1)IllustrationsintheUnitedStatesarecollectivebargaininglawssuchastheRailwayLaborActandtheNationalLaborRelationsAct.
(a)Theunionizationofthelaborforce.
(b)Thecollectivebargainingagreementcontrols,suchasthroughscopeclauses.
(2)UnitedStatesillustrationsforindividualemploymentarealsocontainedinotheremploymentandworkplacelaws.
d.
Marketlimitations.
e.
Technologicallimitations.
f.
Legalsystemsandpoliticalsystems.
2.
TheFactorsthatEliminateControlsandCreatea"Free-Market".
a.
Deregulation.
b.
ElectronicandtechnologicaldevelopmentswhichenableuseoftheInternet.
c.
Anunorganizedanddispersedlaborforce.
d.
Privatization.
3.
NewDevelopments.
a.
Industryexamples:TheAirlineIndustry.
(1)Codesharing.
(2)Alliances.
(3)Regionalflying.
b.
Mergersandconsolidations.
c.
Lackofantitrustenforcement.
d.
Globalfinancing.
e.
Equipment.
f.
LimitstotheU.
S.
lawjurisdiction.
4.
NewFactorsInvolvingLegalSystemsWhichMayExpandOpportunitiestoOperateWithMinimalControls.
a.
Treatiesandbilaterals.
b.
Deregulation.
c.
Antitrustlawswhicharepro-freemarket.
d.
Laborandemploymentlawprovisionsandextraterritoriallimitations.
e.
Nation-statelawsandattitudes(includingstatelaws).
f.
Openskiesandmarketagreementsandprofessional(accounting)standards.
g.
Privatizationofindustries,publicfacilitiesandtheworkforce.
5.
TheVariousFactorsThatRelatetoOperations.
a.
Labor,includinglabororganizationsonaninternationalanddomesticlevel.
b.
Collectivebargainingagreements.
c.
Lackofagreements,includingscopeclausesandotherissues.
d.
Matterswhichaffectoperations--technology,includingtheInternet,electronic"e"business,e-leasing,e-outsourcing,andexpandedglobalcommunications.
e.
Markets,includingmergersandacquisitions.
f.
TheEuropeanUnionandotherRegionalalliancesandtreaties.
g.
InternationalorganizationsincludingtheWorldTradeOrganizationandtheInternationalLaborOrganization.
n2n2See,eg.
BNADailyLaborReport,Dec.
13,2005,pg.
A-3"InternationalunionfilescomplaintwithILOallegingstateviolatesinternationallaborlaws"(notingtheUEcomplaintfiledwiththeILOprotestingNorthCarolina'sfromcollectivebargainingbetweenstateandlocalentitiesandunionsduetoUNconventions87,98and151relatingtoassociationandbargainingrights.
)h.
Publicwillingnesstoobtainlowcostproductsandserviceswithoutloyaltytocompaniesor"brandidentification"basedonthepointoforigin,orlocationofoperations,orhistoryorpriorexperiences.
i.
Technologyandequipment.
j.
Availabilityofeconomicresources(includinglabor,fuelandenergyatlowercosts).
k.
Fuel.
Therearesomeillustrationswhichdemonstratenotonlythedetailswithregardtotheforegoing,butthetypesofchangesthathaveoccurredinthepast,andcontinuetooccur,becauseoftheinterrelationshipofthelawsandevents.
A.
AllianceIllustrationsUsingtheAirlineIndustryasaPrimeExample.
1.
FinancialTimes,Monday,February1,1999,page8,col.
1,inanarticletitled"Oneworld,lotsofbenefits"byRogerBray,notedthat:Oneworld,atie-upbetweenBritishAirways,AmericanAirlinesandthreeotherinternationalcarriers,comesintoeffecttodayofferinghugebenefitstobusinesstravelers.
***Oneworld'sothermembersareCanadianAirlines,CathayPacificandQuantas.
(Asixthpartner,Finnair,joinedlateandwillnotintroduceservicechangesuntillaterthisyear.
)Thefiveairlineswillofferthroughcheck-inonmostservices,althoughitisstillnotpossibletocheckbagstoonwarddestinationswithintheU.
S.
withoutpassingthroughcustomsatagatewayairport.
Whereverpossible,theairlineswillmovearrivalanddeparturegatesclosetogethertocuthassleforconnectingpassengers.
***Therearecomplications,however.
OneworldisdesignedtoavoidU.
S.
antitrustobjectionsbecauseitdoesnotinvolveanynewattempttostandardizefaresorjugglewithcapacityorflightfrequencies.
ButwhileargumentabouttheBA-Americandealrumbleson,pointsearnedwithoneonNorthAtlanticflightswillnotcounttowardstoptiermembershipwiththeother.
Andwhileothercarrierswithinthegroupmaybeabletodovetailconnectingflighttimes,AmericansaysitisnotyetallowedtodothatwithBA.
Aspokesmansays:"Withoutantitrustimmunitytherearefourthingswecan'ttalktoBAabout:scheduling,pricing,frequency,capacity.
"2.
InanarticlebyJohnMasonintheFinancialTimes,"CourtrulesHeathrowslotscanbesold,"Friday,March26,1999,page10,col.
1,statedthefollowing:TheliberalizationofcivilaviationintheEuropeanUnionadvancedyesterdaywhentheHighCourtinLondonrulesthatslotsatHeathrowairportcouldbesold.
HeathrowinthewesternsuburbsofLondonisthebiggestUKairport.
Theruling,whichcouldhavewidespreadimplicationsforinternationalaviation,goesagainsttheEuropeanCommission'slong-standinginsistencethatthebuyingandsellingofslotsisillegal.
Thetradeinairslotshasbeenacovert,butestablished,practiceanditslegalityhasneverbeentestedbefore.
***BritishAirwayswelcomedthejudgment,sayingitclarifiedthelawandtherightsofairlinestofreelyexchangeslots.
Thiswasessentialforinvestment,itsaid.
Brusssels'insistencethatslotscannotbesoldwasoneofthereasonsbehindthedelayinBritishAirways'planstoformanalliancewithAmericanAirlines.
TheCommissionrecommendedthatthetwoairlinessurrender267weeklyslotsatHeathrowandGatwickairportsinreturnforapprovaloftheiralliance.
3.
AnarticlebyPaulBettsandGordonCrambtitledAlitalia,KLMpoisedforco-operation,FinancialTimes,Friday,November27,1998,page21,col.
1,noted:AlitaliaandKLMRoyalDutchAirlinesaretosigntodayawide-rangingco-operationagreementthatisexpectedtocomeclosetoafulloperationalmerger.
Thealliance,whichatthisstagedoesnotenvisageanyequityexchangesbetweenthetwoairlines,willinvolvethecreationoftwoseparatejointly-heldcompaniestocontrolpassengerandcargooperations.
Alitalia,whichreachedapreliminaryagreementwithKLMlastyear,seesthepartnershipasanessentialstepaheadofitsplannedprivatization.
TheItaliangovernment,whichcontrolstheairline,ishopingtosellitsremaining67percentstakeinthecarrierbeforenextspring.
***TheKLM-Alitalialink-up,whichwillalsoincludeKLM'sUSpartnerNorthwestAirlines,willchallengetheStarAlliance--theworld'slargestalliance,includingLufthansaandUnitedAirlines--andOneworld,ledbyBritishAirwaysandAmericanAirlines.
***However,thepartnershipbetweenKLM,Europe'sfourthlargestcarrier,andAlitalia,theseventhbiggest,willstretchbeyondthecompetingalliancesbyintegratingmorefullytheirrespectiveoperationsratherthansimplyco-operatingonfrequent-flyerprogrammesandcodesharing.
Asaninitialstep,thetwoairlineslaunchedlastmonthjointcargooperationsto16destinationsandco-ordinatedpassengerservicestoAustraliaandsouthernAfrica.
***B.
Privatization.
TheEconomist,onFebruary20,1999,atpage61,Seasonalrepentance,noted:CarnivalcameearlythisyeartoSEPI,Spain'sstateholdingcompany.
OnFebruary12thitsealedadealwithBritishAirways(BA)andAmericanAirlinestotake9%and1%stakes,respectively,inIberia,theSpanishnationalairlinethatisnextinSEPI'srapid-fireprivatizationprogramme.
Alongwith30%ofIberiareservedfora"hardcore"ofloyalSpanishinstitutionalinvestors,theBA-Americanstakewillprovideafoundationforthepublicflotationoftheairlineinearlysummer.
***ButforthereformingSpanishandFrench,privatizationwillprovideafurthertugtowardsdryground.
Thestickiestremainingmudisthepatchinwhichthepilotsliketowallow.
Iberia'spilotsstillearn20%morethantheirpeersatprivateairlinessuchasBA.
Cossetedbybail-outsandperksthatincludedfreeflightsfortheirchildren'snannies,thepilotshavegoneonstrikeseveraltimesoverattemptstoimposeonthemdealssimilartothoseacceptedbygroundstaff,whosepaywascutin1994.
C.
Equipment.
AnarticlebyTimBurt,titledSASplans$1.
8bnorderfromAirbus,FinancialTimes,Monday,April5,1999,noted:ScandinavianAirlinesSystem,thethree-nationNordicairline,islikelytoplaceaSKr13bn-SKr15bn($1.
58bn-$1.
82bn)orderforlong-haulaircraftwithAirbus,theEuropeanconsortium.
***Inaninterview,Mr.
StenbergsaidSAS'sfleetofBoeing767swouldprobablybereplacedbyAirbusA33OandA340jets--thefirsttimethattheairlinehadplacedanorderwiththeEuropeanmanufacturer.
"Airbusisaheadwithitslong-haulcombination.
Itoffersmoreoptionsintermsofsizeandrange.
"***SAS'spreferenceforAirbusmayhavebeeninfluencedbyitsincreasinglyclosetieswithLufthansa,theGermancarrieranditspartnerintheStaralliance.
LufthansaandSAShopetocutcostsbysharingprocurementandmaintenanceforpartsoftheirfleet.
TheGermancarrier,oneofAirbus'slargestcustomers,hasalreadyagreedtoservicetheenginesforSAS'snewBoeing737s.
D.
OpenSkies.
Aneditorial,"Openskies,"FinancialTimes,Tuesday,February26,1999,atpage15,col.
1,noted:SignsthattheUSandtheUKarereadytoagreean"openskies"accordaretobewelcomed,mainlybecausethiscouldhelpopenthedoortoatransatlanticopenskiesagreementbetweentheUSandtheEU.
Theairlineindustryshouldberuntobestservepassengers.
Toooftengovernmentscalltheshots,allocatingtheseatsatthefronttothesupposedinterestsofnationalcarriers,andbumpingtheconsumerinterestintosteerage.
***Thefirststeptowardstransatlanticopenskiesshouldbetheliftingofrestrictionsonforeignownership,currentlymoreonerousintheUS.
Governmentswillhavetoacknowledgethatgoodfaresandservicearemoreimportantthantheflagonthetail.
Indeed,thereisnoroleforgovernmentintheairlineindustrybeyondensuringsafetyandcompetition.
Atatimewhenautomobile,oilandpharmaceuticalindustriesareconsolidating,itisabsurdthatgovernmentsremainsodeterminedtopromotetheirnationalchampionsinthesky.
E.
Relocation.
MichaelSkapinker,AerospaceCorrespondent,inSabenamaymovepilots'contractstoSwitzerland,FinancialTimes,Friday,April3,1998,page17,col.
2.
,discussedconsiderationgivenbySabenaAirlines,thenationalairlinesofBelgium,toashiftofitspilots'employmentcontracttoSwitzerlandinanattempttoavoidhighersocialsecuritychargesandtaxesinBelgiumandnotedthatsimilarconcernsarebehindpossiblerelocationbyVirginExpress,aBrussels-basedcarrier,totheUnitedKingdomorIreland.
Theexamplesintravelandotherindustriesareself-evident.
Theydemonstratethechangestechnologycanmakeintermsofcombiningcustomerserviceswithverycompetitivebusinesseffort.
Seee.
g.
FinancialTimesSurvey,Thursday,September9,1999,pageI,col.
1,Fightforloyaltyfuelsexpansion:Hoteliers,likeairlines,arechangingstrategiesastheystrivetoenticeandkeepglobaltravelers',whatevertheirportofcall.
ScheherazadeDaneshkhureport":Therapidpaceofconsolidationinthehotelindustryshowsnosignofflagging.
Internationalhotelchainsarecompetingforbusinesstravelers"loyalty,andthatinvolvesprovidingahotelinmostplacesthetravelerneedstovisit.
F.
Outsourcing.
ThemosteffectivewayofbringingtheissueofoutsourcinghomewasadramaticannouncementbythePentagonofitsrequesttoCongressforauthoritytoawardcontractstoforeignairlinestomoveU.
S.
troopsandequipment,whichhasbeendescribedasa"businessthathasalwaysbeenlimitedto--andbeenlucrativefor--American-basedcarriers".
n3n3ArecentarticleinTheNewYorkTimesstated:Theproposal,intheDefenseDepartment'sbudgetrequestforfiscalyear2005,couldhaveitsgreatestimpactontheCivilReserveAirFleet,agroupof24passengerandcargocarriersthatsigncontractswiththePentagoneachyear.
TheseairlineswereinstrumentalintransportingmilitarypersonnelandequipmenttotheMiddleEastlastyearbeforeandduringtheIraqwar.
Inall,Americanpassengerandcargocarrierswerepaid$1.
2billiontoflynearly500,000troopstoandfromthewarzoneduringtheformalIraqconflict.
Thecargocompaniescarriedmorethan161,000tonsofequipment,accordingtoaPentagonreportlastfall.
ButtheymaynothavealockonthePentagon'sbusinessforlong.
Inits2005appropriationsrequest,submittedlastmonth,thePentagonaskedCongresstorepealalawthatbarsforeign-ownedairlinesfrombiddingonitscontracts.
MichelineMaynard,PentagonSeekstoUseForeignAirlines,TheNewYorkTimes,Saturday,April10,2004.
Notwithstandingthesecurityissues,thepriorPresidentialcampaignissues(suggestingthatoutsourcingisapoliticalissue),andotherquestionsthatrelatetouseofforeigncarriers,thePentagonannouncedthatitwasconsideringusingforeigncarriersforflyingourtroopsbecauseitwascheapertodoso:Byallowingforeigncarrierstobidagainstdomesticrivalsforcontracts,thePentagoncouldbenefitintwoways,saidRobertW.
MannJr.
,anindustryconsultantbasedinPortWashington,N.
Y.
Competitioncouldbringdownthepricethatthemilitarypaystotransporttroops,hesaid.
AmericancarrierstransportsoldiersandequipmentfrombasesintheUnitedStates,likeDover,Del.
,tomilitaryinstallationsoverseas.
Theplanesdonotflyinconflictzones.
ThePentagonpaysafloat8.
5centsaseatmileforaround-tripflight.
ThecostofatypicalflightbetweenDoverAirForceBaseandKuwaitCitywas$379,965,accordingtothePentagonreportlastyear.
Thatwasfora13,546-mile,round-tripflightusingaMcDonnellDouglasDC-10with330seats.
ButMr.
Mannsaidforeignairlines,especiallychartercompanies,havebeenknowntoseekaslittleas5centsaseatmileforequivalenttrips.
ThePentagon'mayfeeltheycangetbetterpricingfromothersuppliers,'hesaid.
Itwasnotclearwhichforeignairlineswouldparticipate.
ButindustryexpertsnotedthatcompetitioninEuropebetweenlow-farecarriersandmajorairlineshasledtoexcesscapacitythere.
Meanwhile,adeclineinflightstotheMiddleEastbecauseoftheIraqconflictcouldcausecarriersbasedtheretobecomeinterestedinbiddingforPentagoncontracts.
ThePentagonalreadyhastheabilitytograntcontractstoforeignairlinescasebycaseifnoAmericancarrieriswillingtoassumetheriskofaflight.
Inthepast,thePentagonhascharteredflightsbyVolgaDneprAirlinesorRussiaandUkrainianCargoAirways.
MichelineMaynard,PentagonSeekstoUseForeignAirlines,TheNewYorkTimes,Saturday,April10,2004.
IftheannouncementofthePentagondoesnotsayenoughaboutwherewearen4,othernationshavetheirowncarriersandtheycancompetewiththeUnitedStatescarriersaslongastheyappeartobeaseffectiveandsafe.
TheUnitedStatesisnotinapositiontoprecludesuchcarriersfromcompeting,becausetheUnitedStateswantstobeabletoobtainaccesstootherlocationsandtherearereciprocal,diplomaticandlegalrealitiesn5sinceothernationshavelawstoo.
n4"Airlines'OpenSkies'AccordMayNotFly"WallStreetJournal,Mon.
Feb.
27,2006pg.
A4col.
1(discussingforeignownershipissues)n5"LufthansaOfferstoCooperateinAntitrustProbe"WallStreetJournal,Wed.
March8,2006,pg.
A3(regardingUSpricefixinginvestigationsoftheworld'slargestcarriers).
III.
ThePost9-11ConceptsofCross-BorderCollectiveBargainingRecenteventssinceSeptember11thhavefurthercomplicatedmatters.
Inadditiontoarmedconflictrecentarticleshavechronicledthedifferencesbetweennations.
Onepublicationactuallydescribedwaysbywhichnationsremaintribalasisreflectedbytheirathleticevents.
Thereareanumberofdifferentinterpretationsregarding"globalization"after9/11.
OneisaninterestingbookbyFranklinFoer,An[Unlikely]TheoryofGlobalization:HowSoccerExplainstheWorld(HarperCollinsPublishers2004),whichinaverybizarrewayusesthegameofsoccertodescribethepropositionthatglobalizationhasnotunitedtheworldbut,rather,hasrevivedtribalism.
Therearemanyotherpublicationswhichalsodescribefractionalizationandbalkanizationduetovariousdifferentnationalinterests.
Theresultisthatitisverydifficulttopredictwhatwilloccur.
Thereiseveryreasontobelievethatchangeswillcontinue,whichwillcauseairlinestocarefullyevaluateinternationalevents.
Asexamples:A.
Airlinesareconstantlytryingtoevaluateinternationalprotections,becauseofeventsorclaimsormattersthatwouldnotnormallybepredictedbutsuddenlyarise.
Seee.
g.
NikkiTait,DeepVeinThrombosis:Airlinesmayfacehugeclaimsaftercourtruling,FinancialTimes,Friday,February1,2002,page8,col.
1,notingrecentdamageclaimsforpassengerswhomaintainthattheyhavesufferedbloodclotsaftermakinglong-haulflights.
Thesenewissuesastotheso-called"economyclasssyndrome"raisetheissueastowhethertheinternationalchartersandagreementsprotectcarriersfromclaimsofaccidentsthatrelatetonewemergingtorttheories.
B.
SeeDanielDombey,ComplexEUlegalnetclosesinonaviationdeals,FinancialTimes,Friday,February1,2002,page3,col.
1,discussingtherecentrulingofEuropeanCourtofJusticeregarding"openskies"aviationdealsbetweenEUcountriesandtheUnitedStatesandthebanon"openskies"previouspolicieswhichmightfavorafewcarriersandtherevisionstorefermatterstoEUrepresentatives.
SeealsoDanielDombeyandMarkOdell,CourtfindingcastsdoubtonUSaviationagreements,notingthattheEuropeanCourtofJusticeindicatedthatthecentralfeatureofsuchagreementson"openskies"dealsbetweentheU.
S.
andindividualEUmemberstatesoveraccesstoEuropeanAirportswasillegalandthatsuch"openskies"dealshamperconsolidationandliberalizationofEuropeanaviationbylimitingprivilegestoairlinesfromonlyoneEUcountryratherthanfromtheentireairEU.
Theresultnotonlyimpacts"openskies"butrelatestosuchalliancesastothosebetweenBritishAirwaysandAmericanAirlineswhichhavefallenapartandnegotiatingrightstoLondon'sHeathrowAirport.
Thearticlenotesthatsomeofthepriorarrangementsmadeintheinternationalaviationcommunitynowhavetoberethought.
SeeforthedecisionsoftheCourtInternetwebsite:http://www.
curia.
eu.
intThejudgmentsconcerncasesC-466/98,C-467/98,C-468/98,C-471/98,C-472/98,C-475/98andC-476/98.
C.
ChristopherAdamsandMichaelMann,EconomicReform:Employers'GroupsSayGuidelinesWillMakeitHarderto"HireandFire",BusinessattacksBrusselsoverworkers'rights,FinancialTimes,Wednesday,March6,2002,page8,col.
1,notingthattheEuropeanUnionisnowevaluatingnewdirectivestoprovideworkerswithmorerightsthatwillimpactontheabilitytousetemporaryworkerswhowillbegivencomparablerightstopermanentemployeesundersomeproposals;theEuropeanUnionCommissioninvolvedinthismatterisaskingemployersandunionstonegotiateacodeofconductwhichwillbedonebytheEUrepresentativesandimpactonlaborandemploymentmatters.
D.
ApotentialissueofmajorsignificanceinvolvedlitigationinKaskyv.
Nike,Inc.
,2002WL827173(Cal.
2002),protestingthepublicrelationsstatementsbyNikeastoitsbusinesspracticesinothernations,basedonthegroundthatiftheinformationprovidedwerenotcorrect,theresultwouldviolatetheprohibitionagainstunfairandunlawfulbusinesspractices.
Nikewassuedbyanindividualinterestedinmaintainingthatusingworkforcesthatareexploited,forreasonsalleged,couldbesubjectofanactionifNike,explaineditspositioninamannertheindividualplaintiffallegedwerefalse,andmisleading,soastocreateacauseofaction,orclaim,underCalifornialaw.
Nikeandmanyotherrelatedinterestgroups,includingnewsandmediapublications,maintainedthattheNikecommunicationswerepartofprotectedspeechundertheFirstAmendment,thatcouldnotbethesubjectofsuchlitigationduetostateandfederalconstitutionalreasons.
TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtruledthatthecommunicationswere"commercialspeech"andenabledthelitigationtoproceed.
Nikepetitionedfor,andtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtgranted,certiorarireview.
SeeNike,Inc.
,etal.
v.
Kasky,123S.
Ct.
817,71U.
S.
L.
W.
3319(Jan.
10,2003).
However,whentheSupremeCourtruled,itchosetodismissthepetitionforreviewas"improvidentlygranted.
"SeeNike,Inc.
,etal.
v.
Kasky,123S.
Ct.
2554,539U.
S.
(June26,2003)(AppendixB).
E.
Thetrendofnationsistoalsoreviewmattersforpurposesoftreatiesinconnectionwithstatutesrequiringenvironmentalanalysis.
Forexample,theU.
S.
DepartmentofTransportationwasfoundtohaveactedarbitrarilyandcapriciously,byfailingtoprovideanenvironmentalimpactstatementrequiredundertheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyActandaStateimplementationplanundertheCleanAirAct,inconnectionwithauthorizingMexicantruckstooperateintheUnitedStates.
SeethedecisionoftheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuitinPublicCitizenv.
DepartmentofTransportation,316F.
3d1002(9thCir.
2003).
SeeBerriochoaLopez,etal.
v.
UnitedStates,309F.
Supp.
2d22(D.
C.
D.
C.
2004),MexicantruckoperatorscouldnotsuetheUnitedStatesclaimingnon-compliancewiththeNorthAmericanFree-TradeAgreement("NAFTA")becauseNAFTAprecludedprivatesuits.
SeealsoMoorev.
UnitedKingdom,F.
3d,2004WL2173311(9thCir.
2004),concludingthatanindividualwhoattemptedtosuetheUnitedKingdomundertheFederalTortClaimsActwasbarredbytheNorthAtlanticTreatyOrganizationStatusofForcesAgreement(thatprecludedsuitsagainsttheUnitedKingdomunderForeignSovereignImmunitiesActof1976,28U.
S.
C.
Sections1602etseq.
fornon-commercialtortscommittedbyitsservicemenwhilepresentwithintheUnitedStates).
Becauseofthetreaty,thelitigationcouldnotproceed.
SeealsoDepartmentofTransportation,etal.
v.
PublicCitizen,etal.
,124S.
Ct.
2204(June7,2004)fortheSupremeCourtdecisiondenyingeffortsbyunionsandenvironmentalgroupstopetitionforreviewoftheDepartmentofTransportationFederalMotorCarrierSafetyAdministration'spromulgationofregulations,becausethatagencylackeddiscretiontopreventcross-borderoperationsofMexicanmotorcarriersundertheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct,ortheCleanAirAct--neitherstatuterequiredtheagencytoevaluatetheenvironmentalaffectsofsuchoperationduetotreatyexemptions.
Asshownbythesedecisions,treatiescanpreemptcertaintypesoflitigation.
ThecombinationofreconsiderationofinternationalprotectionsforcarrierswithconcernsaboutsafetyandconsiderationswhichhavecausedtheUnitedStatestoassistitscarriershaveglobalimplicationsandcausereactionsamongothernationstatestovariouspolicies.
Theresultisthattreatiesmayalsoimpactlaborandemploymentandworkplacelaws.
IV.
ConclusionandFactorsImpactingReturnsandBargaining.
Theantitrustlawshavebeenthemostadvancedformofextraterritoriallegislation.
Theuseofactionsoccurringabroadhavebeenthebasisforlegaljurisdictionbasedonimpactandeffect.
Asnotedbelow,whilecriticized,theseremainanappliedbasisforjurisdiction.
TheantitrustcasesillustratemorethanthebasisforextraterritorialapplicationofU.
S.
laws;theyillustratethetrendtowardsgridlocksuggestingaharbingerofarestrictionofjudicialexpansionistrulings.
A.
TheTimberlinedecisionoftheNinthCircuitanditsconcernregardingconflict.
SeeTimberlineLumberCompanyv.
BankofAmerica,549F.
2d597(9thCir.
1976)(TimberlineI)(citationomitted),onremand,574F.
Supp.
1453(N.
D.
Cal.
1983),aff'd,749F.
2d1378(9thCir.
1984)(TimberlineII).
InTimberlineItheNinthCircuitadopteda"judicialruleofreason"thatinvolvedevaluatingandbalancinganumberoffactorsincluding:[t]hedegreeofconflictwithforeignlaworpolicy,thenationalityorallegianceofthepartiesandthelocationsorprincipalplacesofbusinessofcorporations,theextenttowhichenforcementbyeitherstatecanbeexpectedtoachievecompliance,therelativesignificanceofeffectsontheUnitedStatesascomparedwiththoseelsewhere,theextenttowhichthereisexplicitpurposetoharmoraffectAmericancommerce,theforeseabilityofsucheffect,andtherelativeimportancetotheviolationschargedofconductwithintheUnitedStatesascomparedwithconductabroad.
TheThird,FifthandTenthCircuitshaveusedsimilarbalancingtests.
n6TheD.
C.
andSeventhCircuitshavequestionedthisapproach.
n7n6SeeManningtonMills,Inc.
v.
CongoleumCorp.
,595F.
2d1287,1297-98(3dCir.
1979);IndustrialInv.
Dev.
Corp.
v.
Mitsui&Co.
,671F.
2d876,885-85(5thCir.
1982);MontrealTradingLtd.
v.
Amax,Inc.
,661F.
2d864,869-70(10thCir.
1981).
n7SeeLakerAirwaysLtd.
v.
Sabena,BelgianWorldAirlines,731F.
2d909,948-49(D.
C.
Cir.
1984)(Timerlanefactors"arenotusefulinresolvingthecontroversy");InreUraniumAntitrustLitig.
,617F.
2d1248,1255(7thCir.
1980)(failuretoconsiderTimerlanetestdidnotconstituteanabuseofdiscretion).
B.
TheU.
S.
SupremeCourthasnotbeenoverlyconcernedabouttheconflictissue.
AnexcellentanalysisofissuesrelatedtotheSupremeCourt'srecentdecisioninHartfordFireInsuranceCo.
v.
California,509U.
S.
764(1993)isfoundinJosephP.
Griffin,"ExtraterritorialityinU.
S.
andEUAntitrustEnforcement",AntitrustLawJournal,ABA,Vol.
67,Issue1,1999,atpage159.
Griffinat164describesthemajoritydecisioninHartfordasfollows:JusticeSouter'sanalysisforthe5-4majority,whichincludednow-retiredJusticesBlackmunandWhite,beganbynotingthatalthoughtheBritishdefendantsconcededthattherewasjurisdictionundertheShermanActovertheirLondon-based,challengedconduct,theycontendedthatthedistrictcourtproperlydeclinedtoexercisejurisdictionundertheprincipleofinternationalcomity.
Healsoobservedthatbecausetheissuearoseinthecontextofamotiontodismiss,plaintiffs'allegationsthattheBritishdefendantsparticipatedinconductthatwasintendedtoanddidproduceasubstantialeffectintheU.
S.
insurancemarketmustbeassumedtobetrue.
AccordingtoJusticeSouter,"[I]tiswellestablishedbynowthattheShermanActappliestoforeignconductthatwasmeanttoproduceanddidinfactproducesomesubstantialeffectintheUnitedStates.
Ultimately,however,theCourt,likeCongressinenactingtheFTAIA,specificallydeclinedtoexpressaviewonthequestionwhetheracourtwithjurisdictionundertheShermanActshouldabstainfromexercisingsuchjurisdictiononthegroundsofinternationalcomity.
JusticeSouterdeclaredthattheCourtdidnotneedtodecidethequestionbecauseevenassuminganaffirmativeanswer,"internationalcomitywouldnotcounselagainstexercisingjurisdictioninthecircumstancesallegedhere.
"GriffindescribesthedissentinHartfordasfollows:JusticeScalia,writingforthefourdissenters,arguedthatanynationhavingabasisforjurisdictiontoprescribelawmustrefrainfromexercisingthatjurisdictionifsuchanexerciseofjurisdictionwouldbeunreasonable,underthefactorssetforthinSection403oftheRestatement(Third).
Applicationofthosefactorstotheconductatissuedemonstratedthatthecourtsshouldrefrainfromexercisingjurisdiction:RarelywouldthesefactorspointmoreclearlyagainstapplicationofUnitedStateslaw.
TheactivityrelevanttothecountsatissueheretookplaceprimarilyintheUnitedKingdom,andthedefendantsinthesecountsareBritishcorporationsandBritishsubjectshavingtheirprincipalplaceofbusinessorresidenceoutsidetheUnitedStates.
.
.
IthinkitunimaginablethatanassertionoflegislativejurisdictionbytheUnitedStateswouldbeconsideredreasonable,andthereforeitisinappropriatetoassume,intheabsenceofstatutoryindicationtothecontrary,thatCongresshasmadesuchanassertion.
Arguingthatthemajorityhad"completelymisinterpreted"theRestatement(Third),JusticeScaliacharacterizedthemajority'sholdingthatno"trueconflict"exists"unlesscompliancewithUnitedStateslawwouldconstituteaviolationofanothercountry'slaw"asa"breathtakinglybroadproposition.
"JusticeScaliaandhisdissentingcolleaguesthuspredictedthatthemajority'sholding"willbringtheShermanActandotherlawsintosharpandunnecessaryconflictwiththelegitimateinterestsofothercountries--particularlyourclosesttradingpartners.
"GriffinalsocontendsthattheprincipalauthoroftheRestatement(Third),reliedonbytheCourtinHartford,explainedthatthemajorityhad"misunderstood"theapproachoftheRestatement(Third).
Griffinnotes:IndeterminingwhetherstateAshouldexercisejurisdictionoveranactivitysignificantlylinkedtostateB,oneimportantquestion,inmysubmission,iswhetherBhasademonstrablesystemofvaluesandprioritiesdifferentfromthoseofstateAthatwouldbeimpairedbytheapplicationofthelawofA.
Iamnotsuggestingthat,iftheanswertothequestionisyes,Amuststayitshand.
ThemagnitudeofA'sinterest,theeffectofthechallengedactivitywithinA,theintentionoftheactors,andtheotherfactorsthatIhopewillnotdisappearfromviewremainimportant.
Butconflictisnotjustaboutcommands:itisalsoaboutinterests,valuesandcompetingpriorities.
Alloftheseneedtobetakenintoaccountinarrivingatarationalallocationofjurisdictioninaworldofnation-states.
AndreasF.
Lowenfeld,Conflict,BalancingofInterestsandtheExerciseofJurisdictiontoPrescribe:ReflectionsontheInsuranceAntitrustCase,89AM.
J.
INT'LL.
42,51(1995).
TherearethosewhomaintainthattheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStateshasnowchangeditsposition,asaresultofF.
Hoffman-LaRocheLtd.
v.
EmpagranSA,124S.
Ct.
2359(2004),whichheldthattheUnitedStatesantitrustlawswouldnotapplyinanactionfiledbyforeignindividuals,orentitieschallengingallegedanti-competitiveconductthatoccurredinsignificantpartoutsideoftheUnitedStateswheretheseforeignindividualsclaimonlytobeinjuredoutsideoftheUnitedStates--eventhoughotherswhowerenotpartiestothesuitmayhavebeeninjuredbysuchconductwithintheUnitedStates.
TheargumentcanbemadethattheSupremeCourtisattemptingtobemorecognizantof,anddifferentialtowards,conflictissues.
However,theargumentwillbemadebythoseinterestedinextendingthereachofU.
S.
CourtsthattherecentSupremeCourtdecisiondoesnotchangethelaw,becauseplaintiffsdidnotincludeindividualswhowereUnitedStatescitizens,orwithintheUnitedStatesandaffectedwithintheUnitedStates.
Theissueofcompetinginterestsisnotresolved.
However,assumingthesituationdoesnotchangedrastically,therewillbecontinuedrequestsforextraterritorialapplicationofU.
S.
lawstobargaining.
TheresultreturnsustotheneedtodeterminewhethertheclimateintheUnitedStatescanbechangedtofavorU.
S.
operations.
OnJune20,1996,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinBrown,etal.
v.
ProFootball,Inc.
,116S.
Ct.
2116,135L.
Ed.
2d521(1996),notonlyreconfirmedtheimplicitnon-statutoryantitrustexemptionthatapplieswhereneededtomakethecollectivebargainingprocessworkbut,also,concludedthatthatexemptioncontinuedafteranimpassebetweenalabororganizationandmulti-employerbargaininggroup.
Thecaseisimportant,becauseifthedecisionhadappliedtheantitrustlaws,theendofthebargainingprocesswouldsignifytheendofanexemptionfromantitrustandobviouslycreatemajoradvantagesforlabororganizationsinbargaining.
InBrowntheprofessionalfootballplayerssuedthefootballclubowners,becausetheclubownershadbargainedwiththePlayersUnionoverawageissueuntiltheyreachedanimpasseandtheownershadthenagreedamongthemselves(butnotwiththeUnion)toimplementthetermsoftheirownlastbestbargainingoffer.
IftheFederallaborlawsdidnotshieldsuchanagreementfromantitrustattackafteranimpasse,multi-employerbargaining(whichtheCourtfoundaccountsformorethan40percentofthemajorcollectivebargainingagreementsinsuchindustriesasnotonlyentertainmentandsportsbutconstruction,transportation,retailtrade,clothingmanufactureandrealestate)wouldbeinjeopardy.
TheCourtspecificallyconcludedthatitsholdingwasnotintendedtoinsulatefromantitrustrevieweveryjointimpositionoftermsbyemployers.
TheCourtleftagreatdealtobedeterminedinthefuturebutrejectedavarietyofdifferenttheoriesthatwouldhavefoundthemulti-employerbargaininggroupsubjecttoantitrustlaws.
Thishaspotentialimplicationsforalliancesintransportationindustries--airandrail--andmaybeofinteresttocarriersandlabororganization.
Recentillustrationsofantitrustissueswhichmaycausethisconcepttobecomemorevaluable,notonlyforunionswhichareseekingtoorganizeandretaincontrol,butalso,ironicallyformanagementisduetoantitrustenforcementwithintheUnitedStates.
SeeBarbaraDeLollis,"2airlinesguiltyofpricefixing:BritishAirlines,KoreanAirtopay$600Minfees,"USAToday,pg.
1B,Thursday,August2,2007(regardingpricefixingfinesforallegedtravelpricesforpassengers,travelagentsandshippers).
OnWednesday,July25,2007,theWallStreetJournalatpageA-12inanarticle"AmericanAir,PartnersSeekAntitrustImmunity"("WallStreetJournal")stated:AMRCorp's.
AmericanAirlinesunitandfourofitsOne-WorldAlliancePartnersappliedforantitrustimmunitywiththeDepartmentofTransportation.
TheFt.
Worth,Texas,airlinesaidtheapplication,askingforimmunityeffectiveinMarch,wouldallowAmericanAirlinesanditspartnersIberia,Finnair,Malev,HungarianAirlinesandRoyalJordanianAirlinestoincreasecodesharing,routeandscheduleplanning,frequentflyerprograms,priceandyieldmanagement,cargoservicesandcooperationinotherareas.
AmericanAirlinesmaintaineditanditsco-applicantswere"comparablewithotherapplicants"suchascompetingStarAllianceandSkyTeamentities.
Thearticlenoted:One-Worldismadeupof10airlines,includingBritishAirways,PLC,CatheyPacificAirwaysLtd.
andJapanAirlinesCorp.
ThemovecomeslessthanamonthaftermembersoftheSkyTeamalliance--DeltaAirlines,Inc.
,NorthwestAirlinesCorp.
,AirFrance-KLM,Ali-ItaliaSpaandCSACzechAirlines--appliedforimmunity.
ThearticlewentontonotethatStarhad"17airlines,includingUALCorp.
'sUnitedAirlinesunitandUSAirwaysGroup,Inc.
"andtheSkyTeamhadearlierapplications"rejectedin2005"becausethegovernmentwasconcernedabout"givingantitrustimmunitytoanalliancewithtwoU.
S.
carriers.
"Thearticleconcludedbynotingthat"theU.
S.
-EuropeanUnion"openskies"treatywasreachedtoliberalizethetrans-Atlanticmarket.
"Northwestalreadyhasa"longstandingarrangementwithKLM,RoyalDutchAirlines,nowownedbyAirFrance".
DeltaandAirFrance,in2002,"hadreceivedantitrustimmunitytocooperateacrosstheAtlantic.
AlitaliaandCSACzechAirlines,alsomembersoftheSkyTeam,alsoareaskingforimmunityontransatlanticroutes.
"Itisobviousthatco-sharing,whichwouldhavebeenimpossibletwentyyearsago,isnowpossiblebecauseelectronicbookingnotonlyenablestravelwithoutpaper,whilenotinanywayeliminatingthecontroloverthenumberstraveling,but,also,enablesinstantaneousmodificationsandroutingsthatnevercouldbeachievedbeforethetechnologicalrevolutionandtheadventoftheinternet.
OneofthechallengesforgovernmentsisthatifsuchgovernmentsastheU.
S.
andthoseintheE.
U.
areunwillingtoconsenttoeliminatingantitrustrestrictions,othergovernments,orotherindustryleadersfromotherportionsoftheglobenotsoregulated,maybeabletocreatecarrierswhichcanoperatewithouttheantitrustareaimmunitythatexistsinsuchlocationsastheU.
S.
andE.
U.
Theglobalsituationintheantitrustareamayprecludegovernmentsfromattemptingtosetuphighbarrierstolowercostsbecausetheinterrelationshipsandinterdependencesmaymakeantitrustprotection,forinstance,oftheairlineindustry,insuchmarketsastheE.
U.
andtheUnitedStates,aproblemwhichcouldsurfaceinotherareaswithotherindustries.
Therealityisthatnationswhicharefacedwithhighstakesbargainingwithothernationsmayfinditeasiertorelaxtheirantitrustregulations.
Thismaymakeitmoreimportantforcarriersandunionstoexaminetheantitrustimplications.
ItisnotwithoutsignificancethattheeasiestanalogyforunderstandingthewaythatthelaborexemptionfromantitrustcanprovideformutualbenefitsisseenweeklythroughouttheyearintheUnitedStates,ontheplayingfieldsandcourts.
Football,basketball,andbaseballareexamplesofsituationsthatonlyexistintermsoftheleaguesandtheirrestrictionontradesandplayermovement,becauseofthelaborexemptionfromantitrustlawswhichenablesthejointparticipationinamonopolythatiseconomicallybeneficial,fortheteamsandtheplayers.
Onewouldsuspect,carriersandtheunionsmaycatchonandconsiderplayingballinthisarenasooner,orlater,inconnectionwiththevariousallianceandantitrustnegotiations,ifnot,inconnectionwithanyotherregulatoryincentives.
Thisreturnsusfullcircle;and,itsuggeststhattherecanbeanumberofinterestingissuesdiscussedtoenablewaystoresolveproblemsbyunionsandmanagementworkingtogethertoobtainexemptionsandadditionalopportunitiesnotonlywithintheUnitedStatesunderitslawsbutpursuanttoTreatiesandotherregionalandinternationalarrangements.
Therealsoarereasonswhythereshouldberecognitionofothernation-stateslawstoavoidlegalgridlock.
SeeFleming,After9/11/2001,isa"CityonaHill"onaSlipperySlopeWhenItLegislatesInconsistentlyWithImportantNation-StateInterestsAnAnalysisofMissouriHotel&MotelAss'nv.
CityofSt.
Louis,Mo.
,33Urb.
Law.
1059(Fall2001),discussingMissouriHotel&MotelAss'nv.
CityofSt.
Louis,146DailyLab.
Rep.
(BNA)E-1(July31,2001)(notingapotentialconflictbetweentheUnitedStatesandtheEuropeancommunityandothergroupsofnation-statesaswellasthepotentialforconflictsbecauseoftechnology).
SeeThe"UnitedStates":AnAnalysisofFederalMaritimeCommissionv.
SouthCarolinaPortsAuthority,34Urb.
Law.
859(No.
4,Fall2002).
WhiletherearethosewhomightarguethattheUnitedStateslawshouldbeappliedabroad,theexpansionofAmericanpowercancreateinternationaldifficulties.
OthernationstatescantrytoassertthesametypeofjurisdictioninamannerwhichwillunderminetheUnitedStateslaborandemploymentlaws.
ThiswasnotedbyWilliamGlabersoninhisarticleU.
S.
CourtsBecomeArbitersofGlobalRightsandWrongs,NewYorkTimes,June21,2001,at1.
Glabersonnotedthatproblemsresult,suchas:"TheexpansionofAmericanlegalpowerhasbeenexplainedinrecentyearsasthenaturaloutgrowthofaninterconnectedworld.
Butlately,somelawyersandlegalscholarshavebeguntoarguethatthecasesrepresentasweepingchangethatistransformingAmericancourtsintoinstitutionswithinternationalsway.
"Id.
Oneoftheadditionalproblematicissues,isthattheprocessworksbothways:Butglobalismmeanstherearetwosidestosuchexpansivenotions.
EuropeanregulatorshavestartedtoapplytheirownlawstoAmericanbusinesses.
SkepticismbyEuropeanregulatorshasstalledseveralrecentmergersbyAmericancompanies,includingGeneralElectric'splanned$45billionacquisitionofHoneywellInternational.
Somecourtsrefusetogetinvolvedinforeignmatters.
Americancourtsdeclined,forexample,tohearlawsuitsagainstthePrinceofWalesandformerPrimeMinisterThatcher,whichclaimedtheyhadviolatedhumanrightsinNorthernIrelandandLibya.
ButAmericancourtsareincreasinglywillingtostretchtheirauthority.
AmongthecasesthatopenedthedoorwasaSupremeCourtrulingin1992thatsaidaMexicanchargedwithkillinganAmericandrugenforcementagentcouldbetriedinthiscountryeventhoughagentshadkidnappedhimfromMexico.
Similarly,in1991,afederalappealscourtinWashingtonapprovedthetrialofamanwhofederalprosecutorssaidwasaLebanesemilitiaofficial,FawazYunis,whowaschargedwithhijackingaJordanianplaneinBeirutandwasarrestedwhileonayachtintheMediterranean.
Thesecasesareafarcry,somelawyerssay,fromaNewYorkfederalcourt'srefusalin1987toconsiderthemultibillion-dollarlawsuitsagainsttheUnionCarbideCorporationovertheBhopalchemicaldisasterinIndia.
Inadditiontocourtrulings,Americanlegalvaluesarealsoexportedinformally,Mr.
WallanceofKayeScholerarguedinanarticlelastyear.
AsanexamplehecitedboycottsofclothingbrandsmanufacturingincountriesthatdonotcomplywithAmericanworkplacerules.
Sofar,criticismofexpandingambitionsoftheAmericanlegalsystemhasbeenmuted.
Butsomeforeigngovernmentshavesaidtheyareoffendedbysuitsinthiscountry,andsomeAmericanlegalexpertswarnthattheUnitedStatesisopeningwhatcouldbeadangerouslegalcompetitionwithothercountries.
OthercountriesarealreadytryingtoexpandtheinfluenceoftheirlegalrulesortofightofftheinfluenceofAmerica'slegalsystem.
SomeEuropeancountriesarerestingaproposedinternationalagreementinTheHaguethatwouldmakeiteasiertoenforcejudgmentsofAmericancourtsabroad.
IfAmericandiplomatsandexecutivesbecomeentangledinlawsuitsinothercountries,theUnitedStatesmightstarttoviewitslegalexpansionisminadifferentlight,saidCurtisA.
Bradley,alawprofessorattheUniversityofVirginia.
InearlyJune,aChileanjudgesaidhewouldtrytogetHenryA.
Kissinger,theformerUnitedStatessecretaryofstate,totestifyaboutthedisappearanceofanAmericaninChilewhenthedictatorAugustoPinochetseizedpowerinthe1970's.
JackL.
Goldsmith,alawprofessorattheUniversityofChicago,saidAmericanshavenotconsideredtheconsequencesofapplyingthiscountry'slawallovertheworld.
"TheUnitedStateslovestoexportourvalues,"Mr.
Goldsmithsaid,"butnotifitgivesothercountriesthepowertoreviewwhatwedo.
"Id.
SeeNike,supra,discussedabove.
C.
AnothercomplicationisthatmanyindividualsinothernationsarenowsuingintheUnitedStates.
SeeNeelaBanerjee,LawsuitSaysExxonAidedRightsAbuses,N.
Y.
Times,June21,2001,atC1,(ExxonwassuedinFederalCourtinWashingtonforactivitiesallegedlyinvolvinghumanrightsabusescommittedbystatesecurityforcesthatprotectExxon'slargenaturalgasfieldinIndonesia);Latinbottlerssuedbyunion:Cokedeniesrightsviolations,MiamiHerald,July21,2001,atpageC1,(describingasuitagainstCocaColainFederalDistrictCourtinMiami,FloridaallegingColombianbottlerswereworkingwithdeathsquadstokill,threatenandintimidateplantworkersandnotingthattheSteelWorkersUnionattorneywhowasinvolvedinpromotingthecasealongwiththeInternationalRightsFund,whichbacksthesetypesoflawsuitsundertheAlienTortClaimsAct,concludedthatalthoughCocaColadidnotownthebottlingplantsinColombia,thecompanywasnamedbecauseit"exerciseditsconsiderablecontrol"oversuchplantsandallegedlybenefitsfrom"laborrepression").
Seealso,ChristinaHoag,LatinPlaintiffsPreferU.
S.
Courts:,MiamiHerald,June25,2001,at6.
IndividualsinnationsoutsideoftheUnitedStateshavetherighttobringsuitsintheUnitedStatestocomplainofactionsbyindividualsandcompaniesabroadundertheAlienTortClaimsAct,28U.
S.
C.
Section1350.
InrecentyearstherehasbeenanincreaseinlitigationinfederalandstatecourtsintheUnitedStatesbyindividualsinothernations,whomaintainthatcompaniesdoingbusinessthereviolatedtherightsofsuchindividualsbytorts,whichcreateabasisforaclaimorsuitintheUnitedStatesagainstcompaniesintheUnitedStates--includingemployers,whichwereengagedinactivitiesabroad.
Inconnectionwithtransnationalbargainingtheresultmeansthattherecanbeadditionalexposure,thathastobeevaluatedbycompaniesdoingbusinessabroad,insofarastheyareinvolvedinthecontractswhichrequirethemtoprovideprotectionandsafetyfortheiremployees.
CompanieswhichinitiaterequeststoforeigngovernmentstoprovidesuchprotectiontothoseworkingabroadunderlaboragreementsmayfindthattheyarearguablysubjecttobeingsuedintheUnitedStates--byindividualswhoweredamagedbygovernmentalactivitiesabroad,ifitcanbeshownthatsuchgovernmentalactivitiessomehowrelatedtorequestsofthecompanyandallegationscanestablishthat,asaresult,individualsabroadwerethesubjectoftorts.
Thisisaverycomplexmatter.
ArecentletterfromtheStateDepartmentoftheUnitedStatesrequestingthatafederalcourtdeclinejurisdictionandaNinthCircuitdecisioninvolvingtheAlienTortClaimsAct,raiseimportantquestionsrelatingtointernationallaborandemploymentlawandcollectivebargaining.
TheAlienTortClaimsActallowscitizensofforeigncountries("aliensintheU.
S.
)tosueinU.
S.
FederalDistrictCourtsfortortscommittedoutsideoftheU.
S.
"inviolationofthelawofnationsoratreatyoftheUnitedStates.
"TheStateDepartmentLetterillustratesthecomplexity.
1.
TheU.
S.
StateDepartmentLetterandtheNinthCircuitDecision(a)TheLetterTheU.
S.
StateDepartment,inaletterdatedJuly29,2002fromWilliamH.
Taft,IV,askedTheHonorableLouisF.
Oberdorfer,U.
S.
DistrictCourtJudge("theLetter")todeclinejurisdictioninasignificantcaseinvolving,amongothertortclaims,laborandemploymentissues.
TheLetterrequestedthattheFederalCourtdenyjurisdiction,inresponsetotheFederalDistrictCourtJudge'srequestforthepositionoftheStateDepartment(asaresultofDefendantExxon'smotionaskingthattheJudgeconsiderrequestingaletterfromtheStateDepartmentastoitsopinionwhethertoallowacaseagainstExxonandotherentitiestoproceed).
Thisisoneofseveralcasesfiledagainstmulti-nationalcompaniesinUnitedStatesCourtsundertheAlienTortClaimsAct,afederallawusedsincethelate1970sbyvictimstosueallegedindividualtorturers.
Theconceptofthelawwhen,originallyenacted,wasreportedtobetopreventtheUnitedStatesfrombecomingasafehavenforseafaringpirates.
SeeTimothyMapes,RightsSuitMayUndermineWaronTerror,U.
S.
Warns,TheWallStreetJournal,August7,2002.
TheLetterstates:(1)TheDepartmentofState'sopinionisthatadjudicationofthecasewouldadverselyimpactonthe"interestsoftheUnitedStates".
TheLetterstateditwouldnotaddresslegalissuesbeforetheCourt,butthattheUnitedStatesDepartmentofState"believesthatadjudicationofthislawsuitatthistimewouldinfactriskapotentiallyseriousadverseimpactonthesignificantinterestsoftheUnitedStates,includinginterestsrelateddirectlytotheon-goingstruggleagainstinternationalterrorism.
ItmayalsodiminishourabilitytoworkwiththeGovernmentofIndonesia("GOI")onavarietyofimportantprograms,includingeffortstopromotehumanrightsinIndonesia.
"(2)TheDepartment'sconcern,inits"consideredopinion",isthattheGOImay"respondtothelitigationbycurtailingcooperationwiththeUnitedStatesonissuesofsubstantialimportancetotheUnitedStates"and"thelitigation'spotentialeffectsonIndonesia'seconomycouldinturnadverselyaffectimportantUnitedStatesinterests.
"(3)TheDepartmentanticipatesthat"adjudicationofthiscasewillbeperceivedinIndonesiaasaU.
S.
courttryingtheGOIforitsconductofacivilwarinAceh.
"Asmediareportshaveindicated,thislitigationinvolvedamovementtoestablishthatmulti-nationalcompaniesareliableinUnitedStatesCourtsforallegedhumanrightsabusescommittedabroad.
Thisparticularcaseinvolvedalawsuitbyindividualsandrepresentativesofdeceasedfiledbycounsel,includingcounselfortheInternationalLaborRightsFund("ILRF"),activeinsuchlitigation.
Thelawsuitallegesamongotherassertionsthat"theworld'sbiggestenergycompanywascomplicitinthemurder,tortureandrapeofvillagerslivingnearitsnatural-gasoperationsinnorthernIndonesia.
"ToobtainacopyoftheLetterandadditionalinformationrelatingtothebackgroundofthecase(includingpleadings)andthepositionoftheILRF,youcanconsult:http://www.
laborrights.
org/whichhascopiesofpleadingsintheCourtfile,mediareportsandILRFpositionstatementsonthismatter.
SeealsoTimothyMapes,RightsSuitMayUndermineWaronTerror,U.
S.
Warns,TheWallStreetJournal,Wednesday,August7,2002;PeterWaldmanandTimothyMapes,WhiteHouseSetsNewHurdlesForSuitsOverRightsAbuses,TheWallStreetJournal,Wednesday,August7,2002("WaldmanandMapes,WSJ");and,EdwardAlden,UStriestohaltrightslawsuit,FinancialTimes,Wednesday,August7,2002.
IthasbeenreportedthatthisLetterwasthesecondtimeinayearthattheStateDepartmenthassubmittedsuchcommunicationsonthesideofamajorcorporation,seekingtodismissahuman-rightssuitbroughtbyforeignplaintiffs.
Intheinitialreportedcase,theDistrictCourtJudgeinLosAngelesdeclinedtoadjudicateasimilarhumanrightssuitagainstRioTintofiledbyplaintiffsontheIslandofBougainvilleinPapuaNewGuinea.
Inthatcase,aFederalCourtJudgebasedherdecisionontheletterfromMr.
TaftattheStateDepartment,alsoindicatingthathearingthecasewould"riskapotentiallyseriousadverseimpact"astotheconductofforeignrelations.
SeeWaldmanandMapes,WSJ,supra.
(b)TheNinthCircuitDecisionTheNinthCircuitdecisioninJohnDoeI,etc.
,etal.
v.
UnocalCorp.
,2002WL31063976(9thCir.
Sept.
18,2002),reversed,inpart,asummaryjudgmentinfavorofUnocalinvolvingclaimsundertheAlienTortClaimsActforallegedforcedlabor,murderandrape.
Thefederalcourthadpreviouslydismissedcertainotherstateclaims,whichwerependinginthestatecourtandsetfortrial.
Thematterwasultimatelyresolvedbyasettlement.
TheNinthCircuitalsoaffirmed,inpart,thesummaryjudgmentinfavorofUnocalonplaintiffs'claimsfortortureand,also,affirmeddismissalofalltheclaimsagainstthegovernmentalentities(themilitaryandtheoilentityconnectedwiththegovernmentMyanmar).
TheRICOclaimswerealsodismissed,basedupontheconclusionthatRICOwasnotextraterritorial.
TheNinthCircuithadhoweverfoundthatifthefactsinissueasallegedbyplaintiffswerecorrect,therewassufficientinformationtoprecludeasummaryjudgmentinfavorofdefendants.
Withoutreadingtheentirerecord,itisdifficulttoreachaconclusionastowhatthefactualanalysisshouldbe,becauseofthedifferencesinthefederalcourt'sinterpretationandtheNinthCircuit'sinterpretationofthefacts.
Thereadershould,asaresult,consultthewebsitereferences:forthefederalcourtdecisionseeJohnDoeetc.
,etal.
v.
UnocalCorp.
,110F.
Supp.
2d1294(CD.
Cal.
2000);JohnDoeetc.
,etalv.
UnocalCorp.
,963F.
Supp.
880(C.
D.
Cal.
1997);and,fortheNinthCircuitdecisionseeJohnDoeetc.
,etal.
v.
UnocalCorp.
,2002WL31063976(9thCir.
Sept.
18,2002)(alsoathttp://www.
laborrights.
org/).
ThereadershouldalsoconsultanexcellentoverviewofthelegalanalysisintheBNAOverview,DailyLaborReportNo.
187,atA-1,InternationalLaborNinthCircuitLetsBurmeseCitizensBringATCASuitAgainstUnocalforForcedLabor,atA-1(September26,2002).
Thesecasesraiseissuesextremelytroublesometoresolve.
InRepublicofAustriav.
Altmann,124S.
Ct.
2240(June7,2004),theplaintiffclaimedtheownershipofpaintingsandsuedtheRepublicofAustriaallegingthatthepaintingshadbeentakenbytheNazisinviolationofinternationallaw.
AlthoughAustriamovedtodismiss,theDistrictCourtdeniedthemotion.
TheNinthCircuitaffirmedandremanded.
TheSupremeCourttookjurisdictionandheldthattheForeignSovereignImmunitiesActappliedtoconductthatoccurredpriortoitsenactmentandbeforetheUnitedStates'adoptionofarestrictivetheoryofsovereignimmunity.
Asaresult,thelitigationwasallowedtoproceed.
TheSupremeCourtthereafter,inSosav.
Alvarez-Machain,124S.
Ct.
2739(June29,2004),heldthatanallegationthattheDrugEnforcementAdministrationinstigatedabductionofanindividualfromMexicoforacriminaltrialintheUnitedStatesdidnotsupportaclaimagainstthegovernmentundertheFederalTortClaimsActandtheindividualcouldnotrecoverundertheAlienTortClaimsAct.
Complicationsaremuchmorepronouncedbecauseoftheeventsof9-11.
Ifanationperceivesthatthereisathreatand,tosuppressthethreat,declareswaronterrorists,theremaybeinnocentvictims.
Ifacorporationdoingbusinessinsuchanationtoprotectitspropertyandpersonnelasksformilitaryprotection(orisdependentuponmilitaryprotection),thecorporationshouldbeawarethatmilitaryprotectionaccomplishedthroughawaronterrorismisnotthesameasimplementationofdueprocessoflawinconnectionwithatrialofthosewhomaybeadverselyaffected.
Ifyouaddtothisdifferencesinnationalphilosophiesand,then,theNinthCircuitconclusions(thattheUnitedStateshasdeclaredthatMyanmarisamilitaryregimethatdoesnotrespecthumanrights,andthecorporationdoingbusinessinMyanmarunderstoodthatithadcertainobligationstoindividualsdoingworkforthecorporationbutthatthemilitarywasapproachingpeopleinadifferentmannerwhenitperceivedthemtobetheenemy),averycomplicatedsituationresults.
TheNinthCircuitdiscussedtheNurembergtrialsandtheresponsibilityofnations,andcorporationsorothersdependentuponprotectionofnations.
Itisnotpossibleheretoraisealloftheissuesthatareincludedin,orrelatedto,thesecases.
Asnoted,thecasescitedareimportanttoread.
Ifyouapplysomeoftheprinciplesraisedinthemtodifferentsectionsoftheworldtoday,youmayfindthatyouaregoingtocomeupwithdifferentanswers.
Forthereasonsnoted,itisnotpossiblebasedonfactdependentissuestoreachruleswhichareusuallygenerallyapplicable.
Theanalysisthereforethatfollowsisbaseduponaneffortatraisingsomeimportantquestionsand,then,finallypredictingsomeresults.
2.
IssuesRaised.
IssuesraisedbytheLetterandtheNinthCircuitdecisionandthelitigationincludethefollowing:(a)SincethefederalcourtrequestedtheopinionoftheStateDepartment,shouldafederalcourtasaresultoftheLetterdismissthecaseand,ifitdoesasnotedbelow,whatwilloccurinconnectionwithappellatereview(b)IfthisLettersuggestsatrend,fordefendantstoseekStateDepartmentopinionletters(andthereispressureontheCourtstoseeksuchletters),willthisbeasubstituteforinterventionbytheU.
S.
,andcreateanewtypeofdefense--tostayproceedingsatleastuntiltherehavebeenappellaterulings(c)Ultimately,whatwilltheappellatecourtsandtheSupremeCourtoftheU.
S.
dowiththesetypesofcases,inviewofnotonlyseparationofpowersissuesbutinternationalissuesraised(d)WhatiftheSupremeCourt,whichhasemphasizedsovereigntyofstateswithintheU.
S.
,isaskedbytheFederalgovernmenttoprecludesuchjurisdiction--whatultimatetestwillbeestablishedbytheSupremeCourtfornotonlythereviewprocessbutreconciliationwiththestatutoryprovisionsprovidingforsuchjurisdiction(e)WhataretheimplicationsofthisLetterintermsofnotonlythewaronterrorismbutotherextraterritoriallaborandemploymentlawsoftheUnitedStates,whichifany,impactothernationstates(f)Whatarethelong-runimplicationsofnotonlythewaronterrorismbuttheconcernsoftheUnitedStatesthatitsmilitaryoperationsnotbesubjectedtolitigationofasimilarnature,notonlyintheU.
S.
Courts,butinCourtsofothernation-states(g)WhatimplicationswillthisU.
S.
StateDepartmentletterhaveontheconcernsoftheUnitedStatesaboutavoidingjurisdictionundertheInternationalCriminalCourtbeingestablishedasa"permanentforumtotryindividualschargedwithgenocideandcrimesagainsthumanity"(h)Whataretheimplicationsforthistypeoflitigationinthelong-runintermsofnotonlyprotectingglobalcorporationsagainstsuitsarisingoutoflaborandemploymentmattersbut,also,theimplicationsforsuchcorporationsseekingtoinstitutearrangementsincollectivebargainingnegotiations(andotheragreements)thatmightbemoreprotectiveoftheirinterestsincourtsoftheU.
S.
andothertribunals(i)Whatarethemoralobligationsand,iftheyarenotthesameasthelegalobligations,then:i)whynotii)shouldtheybeiii)whowilldetermineiftheyareiv)whenandhowwillthatoccurWouldyouropiniononthischangeifyouremployees,orrelatives,wereflyingintoacountry'sairportnearawarzoneandyouwouldbeabletoprotectthembyanincreasedmilitaryeffortOrasanalternative,wouldyouropinionchangeifyouhademployees,orrelatives,livinginthecountryintheareaofsuchawarzoneandtheywereadverselyimpactedbythemilitary'sattempttoprotectsomeoneelse'semployees,orrelatives,flyingcommerciallyneartheirhomesbyvirtueofincreasedmilitarysecurity,suchasmayexistaccordingtotheallegationsintheareadescribedinthecases,orsuchasmightexistinareasintheMiddleEastForadditionalissuesraisedbytheauthorofthismaterialsee:forthetrendoftheU.
S.
SupremeCourttostrikedownfederallawswhichintrudeonastate'ssovereignty,IfAbrahamLincolnDiedForFederalismDidHeDieinVainFloridaPrepaidPostsecondaryEducationExpenseBoardv.
CollegeSavingsBankandUnitedStates,31Urb.
Law.
777(Fall1999);and,fortheconcernaboutlocalgovernmentalactionswhichcouldhaveglobalimplications,seeAfter9/11/2001,Isa"CityonHill"onaSlipperySlopeWhenItLegislatesInconsistentlyWithImportantNation-StateInterestsAnAnalysisofMissouriHotelandMotelAssnv.
CityofSt.
Louis,Mo.
,33Urb.
Law.
1059(FALL2001).
3.
PotentialResults.
InviewofrulingsoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtand,inaddition,theU.
S.
StateDepartmentLetter,thefollowingarepotentialresults:(a)ReviewoftheNinthCircuitdecision,orsomesimilartypeofdecisionbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt--ThetimingisimpossibletopredictbecausetheSupremeCourtdoesnothavetotakecertiorari,orreview,theNinthCircuitdecision.
TheSupremeCourtalsocoulddenycertiorariandallowmatterstoberemandedtothefederaldistrictcourtforfurtherdiscoveryandpossiblytrial.
Thelegalissuespendingcouldberesolvedlater(ineithertheNinthCircuitcase,orthecasearisingoutoftheU.
S.
StateDepartmentLetter,orsomealternativecase).
However,thesetypesofcaseswillultimatelyrequireSupremeCourtreview.
(b)TheStateDepartmentLetter--Itwouldappear(basedonwhatisoccurringnow)thattheU.
S.
StateDepartmentwillcontinuetowritelettersandcommunicatewiththejudicialbranch,toprovideitsopinion.
TheopinionisprobablygoingtobesimilartotheLetterthatisdescribedinthisanalysis.
TheU.
S.
StateDepartmentwill,inallprobability,requestthatcourtsnottakejurisdictionoverthesetypesofcases,becauseoftheinternationalimplicationsandspecificallyduetothewaronterrorism.
(c)TheAlienTortClaimsAct--RegardlessofwhattheStateDepartmentdoes,thecourtswillmakethefinaldecisions.
Theywillhaveahardtime,eveniftheyreachtheconclusionthatthereshouldnotbejurisdiction.
TheprovisionsoftheAlienTortClaimsActwerewritteninthelate1700's(tostopprivacyabroadfrombeingrewardedintheU.
S.
)undercircumstancesthatweredifferentfromthoseexistingafter9-11;but,theywillcontinuetobeusedbyplaintiffstoraisequestions.
TheU.
S.
StateDepartmentLetterisanadhocapproach.
ItisalsodifficulttoconceiveofCongress'amending,ormodifying,theActtominimizejurisdiction,duetothepoliticalpressuresthatexist.
TheSupremeCourtrulinginRepublicofAustria,supra,isjustthebeginning.
Thus,itisimpossibletodeterminewhatwilloccurinthefuture,sinceitislikelythattherewillbeagreatdealofadditionalconflictsandrulings.
However,thesepossibilitiesandothersonlysuggestsomeofthepotentialresults.
Theoneclearpointisthatthesemattersaregoingtobeimportantforthoseinvolvedininternationallabor,employmentandworkplaceenvironmentandsafetylawcasesandwillcreatemoreissuestomonitor.
Therearemoreandmorelitigantschoosingvenuesinlegislativeandjudicialcontexts.
Justasunionsmay"cherrypick"andchoosealocaleforanordinance,plaintiffscanselecttheUnitedStatesasafriendlyforum,becauseoftheabilitytohavemoreprocess,trialbyjury,punitivedamagesandlargerawards.
SeeDonaldC.
Dowling,Jr.
,MutinyforaBounty:OverseasWorkers'ClassActionsAgainstU.
S.
Multinationals,29Int'l.
News.
,Fall2000,at1.
D.
TheNationalMediationBoardbefore9-11wasaskedtoexpanditsjurisdictionoveracarrierinasinglecarrierproceedinginresponsetoarequestmaintainingthatbecauseofcodesharingandbecauseofanallianceanumberofairlineswereoperatingasasingletransportationsystem.
TheBoardinreviewingtheapplicationconcludedthatitwouldnotexercisejurisdictionanddismissedthesinglecarrierapplication.
SeeAppendixC,LACSAandTACA/IBT,28NMBNo.
72,CaseNo.
R-6819(May9,2001).
Thepointstoconsider(after9-11)inevaluatingwhatmayoccur,asaresult,areasfollows:1.
Itshouldbeassumedthatunionswouldliketocoverasmuchscopeastheycaninaclassorcraft.
Itshouldalsobeassumedthatcarrierswouldliketorestrictunionization.
2.
Therehavebeenanumberofacasesinwhichcarriershaverelocatedbases,orprocesses,toanothercountryinamannerthatunionshavemaintainedviolatesexistingcollectivebargainingagreements(orcertificationduringaperiodafterexpirationofanagreementbutbeforearelease);and,mattershavebeenlitigatedand,incertaincases,carriershavebeenpreventedfromtakingcertainactionswhichhavebeenfoundtobewithinthescopeofanagreementbyvirtueofarbitrationandcourtdecisions.
3.
Therearesituationsinwhichemployeesinlabororganizationsafterexpirationofagreementsmayquestionmattersthattheydisagreewith,byassertingtheminotherjurisdictions.
IftheassertionsinvolveanattempttorelitigatemattersthatwereconcludedintheUnitedStates,ortocreateresultswhichareinconsistentwiththecollectivebargainingagreementsandUnitedStateslawsregulatingbargainingandagreements,unionscanfindthattheyandtheirmembersendupassertingpositionsthataresomewhatdifferentfromthosethatnormallywouldbeexpected.
CarrierscontendthatanagreementthattheyenteredintoundertheRailwayLaborActintheUnitedStateswhichcouldnotbethesubjectofmodificationsoutsideoftheUnitedStatesshouldnotbetotallyignoredinsuchcases,whenthereisanattempttosecond-guesstheresultsbyunionsorunionmembersaftertheagreementshaveexpiredinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheRailwayLaborAct.
Therealityofthesituationisthatinternationallawisaseriesofdisparateandconflictingrulesoflawwhichhavetobebalancedandreconciled.
Ironically,onethingthatwecanimportfromIndiaistheironythatresultedfromGhandi'sbeingaskedwhathequote"thoughtofWesterncivilization".
InresponseGhandistated"Itwouldbenice.
"Itwouldbeniceifthereweresomewayofreconcilingallthedifferentconflictinglaws;but,fornowwejustneedtoappreciatethepotentialforconflicts.
IfintheUSwecannotcontrolwhatisgoingonabroad,wewillseeanincreasingeffortbylabororganizationstoimposerestrictionsoncompanieswhichdealabroadinamannerthatmayadverselyimpactthelabororganizationsaswellasthemanagement.
Asisnotedinthesematerialstherearetoolswhichenablelitigationandpublicrelationsbattles;andUSlabororganizationsarealsobecomingmoreactiveinfindingcoalitionswithtradeunionsandlabororganizationsinotherareasoftheworldandalsowithotherinterestswhichhaveinternationalobjectives,See,e.
g.
BNADailyLaborReport,Mon.
,Feb.
13,2006c-1"Union'sLaborLeaders,ResearchersRecommendExpandedEffortstoCooperateGlobally"(laborleadersseek"expansionofeffortstouseinternationalalliancesandcoordinationtoadvanceworkers'rights").
Asaresult,itisimportanttounderstandandappreciatetheconflictsandthewaystheywillbeusedfor,andagainst,you.
APPENDIXAUnitedStatesCourtofAppeals,SecondCircuit.
JohnOFORI-TENKORANG,Plaintiff-Appellant,v.
AMERICANINTERNATIONALGROUP,INC.
,AIGFinancialProductsCorp.
,AIGInternational,Inc.
andAIGTradingCorp.
,Defendants-Appellees.
DocketNo.
05-5272-cv.
460F.
3d296Argued:May9,2006.
Decided:Aug.
15,2006.
*297AnneC.
Vladeck(RebeccaJ.
Osborne,onthebrief),Vladeck,Waldman,Elias&Engelhard,P.
C.
,NewYork,NY,forPlaintiff-Appellant.
P.
KevinConnelly,ConnellySheehanHarris,Chicago,IL(KristineAubin,ConnellySheehanHarris,Chicago,ILandMarcE.
Bernstein,NewYork,NY,onthebrief),forDefendants-Appellees.
BeforeWINTER,CABRANESandRAGGI,CircuitJudges.
JOSEA.
CABRANES,CircuitJudge.
TheissuepresentediswhethertheCivilRightsActof1871,asamended,42U.
S.
C.
1981("Section1981"),n1maybeappliedto*298prohibitanemployer'sallegedlydiscriminatoryconductarisingfromtheoverseasassignmentofplaintiff,anon-citizen.
WereviewherethedismissalbytheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofNewYork(DeniseCote,Judge)ofclaimsagainstAmericanInternationalGroup,Inc.
,AIGInternational,Inc.
,AIGFinancialProductsCorp.
,andAIGTradingGroup,Inc.
(collectively"AIG"or"defendants")ofunlawfuldiscriminationonthebasisofracebroughtunderSection1981.
Presumablybecauseotherdiscriminationstatutesreachingtheemploymentrelationship,suchasTitleVIIoftheCivilRightsActof1964,42U.
S.
C.
2000etseq.
("TitleVII"),limitpertinentaspectsoftheircoveragetoU.
S.
citizens,n2plaintiff'sfederallawclaimsrestentirelyonSection1981,whichprotects"persons.
"Butunlikethoseothercivilrightsstatutes,whichhavebeenamendeddeliberatelytoreachconductoccurringoutsidetheUnitedStates,n3Section1981protectsonly"personswithinthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,"42U.
S.
C.
198l(a).
n142U.
S.
C.
1981readsasfollows:(a)StatementofequalrightsAllpersonswithinthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesshallhavethesamerightineveryStateandTerritorytomakeandenforcecontracts,tosue,beparties,giveevidence,andtothefullandequalbenefitofalllawsandproceedingsforthesecurityofpersonsandpropertyasisenjoyedbywhitecitizens,andshallbesubjecttolikepunishment,pains,penalties,taxes,licenses,andexactionsofeverykind,andtonoother.
(b)"Makeandenforcecontracts"definedForpurposesofthissection,theterm"makeandenforcecontracts"includesthemaking,performance,modification,andterminationofcontracts,andtheenjoymentofallbenefits,privileges,terms,andconditionsofthecontractualrelationship.
(c)ProtectionagainstimpairmentTherightsprotectedbythissectionareprotectedagainstimpairmentbynongovernmentaldiscriminationandimpairmentundercolorofStatelaw.
n2BothTitleVII,42U.
S.
C.
2000etseq.
,andtheAmericanswithDisabilitiesActof1990,42U.
S.
C.
12101etseq.
,provide,inpertinentpart,that"[w]ithrespecttoemploymentinaforeigncountry,[theterm'employee']includesanindividualwhoisacitizenoftheUnitedStates.
"42U.
S.
C.
Ё2000e(f),12111(4).
Similarly,theAgeDiscriminationinEmploymentActof1967providesthat"theterm'employee'includesanyindividualwhoisacitizenoftheUnitedStatesemployedbyanemployerinaworkplaceinaforeigncountry,"29U.
S.
C.
630(f).
n3SeeCivilRightsActof1991,Pub.
L.
No.
102-166,109,105Stat.
1071,1077(codifiedat42U.
S.
C.
2000e-l(c),12111(4),12112(c))(amendingTitleVIIandtheADAtoincludetheprovisionsreproducedantenote1);PubL.
No.
98-459,802,98Stat.
1767,1792(1984)(codifiedat29U.
S.
C.
Ё630(f),623(h))(amendingtheADEAtoincludetheprovisionreproducedantenote1).
BasedonthetextandlegislativehistoryofSection1981,weconclude,asamatteroffirstimpressioninthisCircuit,thatCongresshasnotextendedthecoverageofSection1981beyondtheterritorialjurisdictionoftheUnitedStates.
Accordingly,weaffirmtheholdingoftheDistrictCourtdismissingplaintiff'sSection1981claimstotheextentthatthoseclaimsarisefromallegeddiscriminatoryconductthatoccurredwhileplaintiffwaslivingandworkinginSouthAfrica.
Weconclude,however,thattheDistrictCourterredindismissingplaintiff'sclaimsinsofarasheallegesdiscriminatoryconductthatoccurredwhilehewasintheUnitedStates.
WethereforevacatethejudgmentoftheDistrictCourtinsofarasitdismissedthoseclaims,andweremandthecauseforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.
Wesetforththefactsasallegedbyplaintiff,mindfulthatonamotiontodismissweacceptallfactualallegationsastrueanddrawallreasonableinferencesinplaintiff'sfavor.
SeeTwomblyv.
BellAll.
Corp.
,425F.
3d99,106(2dCir.
2005).
Plaintiff-appellantJohnOfori-Tenkorang("Ofori")isablackmanwhohasbeenemployedbyAIGandwhomaintainshis*299permanentresidenceinConnecticut.
Ofori,anon-citizen,beganworkinginAIG'sConnecticutofficesinSeptember1996asaResearchAnalyst.
"BySeptember2003,OforiheldthepositionofStructurerandMarketerinAIG'sFinancialServicesDivision.
"Compl.
P8.
Atthattime,seniorAIGexecutivesbasedinConnecticutandLondondecidedtoreassignOforitoworkonatemporarybasisinoneofthecompany'sofficesinSouthAfrica.
Accordingtoa"ConfirmationofAssignmentLetter"signedbyOforionSeptember,2,2003,SouthAfricawasdesignatedasOfori's"hostcountry,"whiletheUnitedStatesremainedhis"homecountry.
"AIGpromised,amongotherthings,to(a)payOfori'ssalaryinU.
S.
dollars,whichweretobedirectlydepositedintoOfori'sbankaccountinConnecticut,(b)coverhishousingandtransportationcostsinSouthAfrica,(c)prepareallnecessarypaperworkpertainingtohisSouthAfricanemployment,and(d)reimbursehimforcertaintravelexpensestoandfromtheUnitedStates.
Id.
PP10-12.
OforiallegesthatbeforeandafterhisarrivalinSouthAfricahewassingledoutfordiscriminatorytreatmentonaccountofhisrace.
Specifically,OforiassertsthatbeforehelefttheUnitedStates,AIGpersonneldecidedtosendhimtoSouthAfricaandmadearrangementswithrespecttohisworkenvironmentinSouthAfrica.
Ofori'sworkplaceinSouthAfricawasallegedlysituatedinanofficewithawhitecolleagueofquestionableethics,apartfromtheofficewhereamajorityofhiswhite,soon-to-becolleaguesworked.
Seeid.
PP16-17.
Uponhisarrival,Oforiallegedlywassubjectedtogreaterscrutinythanhiswhitecolleagueswhenattemptingtoobtainreimbursementforbusiness-relatedexpenses,seeid.
P18,blamedforpoorbusinessperformancethatwasunrelatedtohiswork,seeid.
P20,threatenedwithterminationafteronlyasinglepoorperformancereview,seeid.
P23,givenasmallerbonusthansimilarly-situatedcolleagues,seeid.
P24,wrongfullyaccusedofstealingfundsfromtheSouthAfricanbusinessmanwithwhomhesharedanoffice,seeid.
PP25-26,improperlysuspendedfromwork,seeid.
PP27-31,andrequiredtoprovidemoredocumentationthanhiswhitecolleaguestojustifyhisrequestformedicalleave,seeid.
PP36,39.
InMarch2005,OforibroughtanactionintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofNewYorkagainstAIGanditssubsidiaries,allegingthathewas(1)subjectedtodiscriminationandretaliatedagainstonthebasisofhisrace,inviolationof42U.
S.
C.
1981andNewYorkStateHumanRightsLaw,N.
Y.
Exec.
Law290etseq.
("NYHRL"),and(2)subsequentlydefamedbyAIG.
Defendants-appelleesmovedtodismissOfori'sclaimsunderFederalRuleofCivilProcedure12(b)(6),arguingthatdespiteOfori'smanycontactswiththeUnitedStates,neitherSection1981northeNYHRLappliestodiscriminatoryconductthattookplaceoutsidetheterritoryoftheUnitedStates.
InanOpinionandOrderdatedSeptember20,2005,theDistrictCourtconcludedthat"nothinginthetext,structure,orhistoryofSection1981indicatesthatCongressintendedittoapplytoeventsoutsidetheterritorialjurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,anditisthereforepresumedthatCongressdidnotintendSection1981toapplyextraterritorially.
"SeeOfori-Tenkorangv.
Am.
Int'lGroup,Inc.
,No.
05Civ.
2921,2005WL2280211,at*6(S.
D.
N.
Y.
Sept.
20,2005).
Inreachingthisconclusion,theDistrictCourtadheredtotheSupremeCourt'steachinginEEOCv.
ArabianAmericanOilCompany(Aramco),499U.
S.
244,111S.
Ct.
1227,113L.
Ed.
2d274(1991),thatcourtsmust"looktoseewhetherlanguageintherelevantActgivesanyindicationofacongressional*300purposetoextenditscoveragebeyondplacesoverwhichtheUnitedStateshassovereigntyorhassomemeasureoflegislativecontrol,"andmustadoptthepresumptionthat"legislationofCongress,unlessacontraryintentappears,ismeanttoapplyonlywithintheterritorialjurisdictionoftheUnitedStates.
"Ofori-Tenkorang,2005WL2280211,at*5(quotingAramco,449U.
S.
at248,111S.
Ct.
1227).
TheDistrictCourtspecificallyrejectedOfori'scontentionthathisSection1981claimsshouldsurvive,notwithstandingthatmostoftheallegedlydiscriminatoryactsoccurredinSouthAfrica,becausethe"centerofgravity"ofhisemploymentrelationshipwithAIGwassupposedlyintheUnitedStates.
Notingthatinsimilarcontexts"[w]herestatutesdonotapplyextraterritorially,courtshaverejectedtheapplicationofa'balancingofcontacts'testtopermitU.
S.
jurisdictionoverforeignactionswithsubstantialU.
S.
contacts,"theDistrictCourtconcludedthat"thefactthattheallegeddiscriminationoccurredoutsidetheterritorialjurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesisfatalto[Ofori's]claim[s]"underSection1981.
Id.
at*6-7.
FollowingitsdecisiontodismissOfori'sSection1981claimswithprejudice,theDistrictCourtdeclinedtoexercisesupplementaljurisdictionoverOfori'sremainingstatelawclaims.
See28U.
S.
C.
1367(c)(3)(permittingadistrictcourttodeclinetoexercisesupplementaljurisdictionwhere"thedistrictcourthasdismissedallclaimsoverwhichithasoriginaljurisdiction").
Thoseclaimsweredismissedwithoutprejudicetotheirrevivalinstatecourt.
Wereviewdenovoadistrictcourt'sdecisiontograntamotiontodismissunderFederalRuleofCivilProcedure12(b)(6),"acceptingastrueallfactsallegedinthecomplaintanddrawingallinferencesinfavoroftheplaintiff.
"Twombly,425F.
3dat106.
"[A]complaintshouldnotbedismissedforfailuretostateaclaimunlessitappearsbeyonddoubtthattheplaintiffcanprovenosetoffactsinsupportofhisclaimwhichwouldentitlehimtorelief.
"Conleyv.
Gibson,355U.
S.
41,45-46,78S.
Ct.
99,2L.
Ed.
2d80(1957).
A.
Section1981andEmploymentDiscriminationSection1981setsfortharemedyforemploymentdiscriminationthatisindependentofTitleVIIoftheCivilRightsActof1964,42U.
S.
C.
2000etseq.
SeeJohnsonv.
Ry.
ExpressAgency,421U.
S.
454,459-60,95S.
Ct.
1716,44L.
Ed.
2d295(1975).
Specifically,Section1981providesthat"[a]llpersonswithinthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesshallhavethesamerightineveryStateandTerritorytomakeandenforcecontracts.
.
.
asisenjoyedbywhitecitizens.
"42U.
S.
C.
1981(a)(reproducedantenote1).
InPattersonv.
McLeanCreditUnion,491U.
S.
164,174-78,109S.
Ct.
2363,105L.
Ed.
2d132(1989),theSupremeCourtreadthethen-applicableversionofSection1981to"prohibit[]racialdiscriminationinthemakingandenforcementofprivatecontracts,"id.
at171,109S.
Ct.
2363(internalquotationmarksomitted),butnottoapplyto"conductwhichoccursaftertheformationofacontractandwhichdoesnotinterferewiththerighttoenforceestablishedcontractobligations,"id.
Section1981wasnotthereforeabletoreachconductsuchas"breachofthetermsofthecontractorimpositionofdiscriminatoryworkingconditions.
"Id.
at177,109S.
Ct.
2363.
PartlyinresponsetoPatterson,seeLauturev.
Int'lBus.
Machs.
Corp.
,216F.
3d258,260(2dCir.
2000)(citingH.
R.
Rep.
No.
102-40,pt.
II,at2(1991),reprintedin1991U.
S.
C.
C.
A.
N.
694,694-95),Congress*301passedtheCivilRightsActof1991,Pub.
L.
No.
102-166,105Stat.
1071,whichaddedthelanguagenowcontainedinsubsections(b)and(c)ofSection1981.
Seeid.
101,105Stat.
at1071-72.
Subsection(c)explicitlyappliesSection1981toprivatediscriminationandsubsection(b)explicitlyassertsthattheterm"'makeandenforcecontracts'includesthemaking,performance,modification,andterminationofcontracts,andtheenjoymentofallbenefits,privileges,termsandconditionsofthecontractualrelationship.
"Accordingly,todeterminewhetherOfori'sclaimsfallwithinthescopeofSection1981,wemustassesswhetheratthetimethatheallegedlywasdenied"theenjoymentofallbenefits,privileges,termsandconditionsofthecontractualrelationship"onaccountofhisrace,42U.
S.
C.
1981(b),hewas,asthestatuteexpresslyrequires,a"person[]withinthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,"id.
1981(a).
B.
ExtraterritorialApplicationofSection1981Inevaluatingwhether42U.
S.
C.
1981appliestoOfori'sclaims,webeginwiththe"legalpresumptionthatCongressordinarilyintendsitsstatutestohavedomestic,notextraterritorial,application.
"Smallv.
UnitedStates,544U.
S.
385,388-89,125S.
Ct.
1752,161L.
Ed.
2d651(2005);seealsoAramco,499U.
S.
at248,111S.
Ct.
1227("WeassumethatCongresslegislatesagainstthebackdropofthepresumptionagainstextraterritoriality.
").
"[A]bsentclearevidenceofcongressionalintenttoapplyastatutebeyondourborders,thestatutewillapplyonlytotheterritorialUnitedStates.
"UnitedStatesv.
Gatlin,216F.
3d207,211-12(2dCir.
2000)(internalquotationmarksomitted).
Wefirst"looktoseewhetherlanguagein[therelevantAct]givesanyindicationofacongressionalpurposetoextenditscoveragebeyondplacesoverwhichtheUnitedStateshassovereigntyorhassomemeasureoflegislativecontrol.
"Aramco,499U.
S.
at248,111S.
Ct.
1227(alterationinoriginal).
IfnecessarytoascertainCongress'sintent,wemayalsoconsider"allavailableevidenceaboutthemeaningofthestatute,includingits.
.
.
structure[]andlegislativehistory.
"Gatlin,216F.
3dat212(internalquotationmarksomitted).
TheplaintextofSection1981manifestsCongress'sintenttoconferon"personswithinthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates.
.
.
thesame[enumerated]right[s]ineveryStateandTerritory.
"42U.
S.
C.
1981(a)(emphasesadded).
FarfromevincinganyintentonthepartofCongressto"apply[the]statutebeyondourborders,"Gatlin,216F.
3dat211,the"language"ofSection1981unambiguouslyconfirmstheopposite.
Moreover,nothinginthestructureorhistoryofSection1981suggeststhatCongressintendedthestatutetoreachdiscriminationagainstindividualsoutsidetheterritorialjurisdictionoftheUnitedStates.
Instead,asJudgeCoteaptlyexplained,[w]hatwaseventuallycodifiedasSection1981originatedin1866aspartof"amajorpieceofReconstructionlegislation"inthewakeoftheCivilWar.
Runyonv.
McCrary,427U.
S.
160,168n.
8,96S.
Ct.
2586,49L.
Ed.
2d415(1976).
SeeCivilRightsActof1866,ch.
31,14Stat.
27(1866).
Theobjectofthatlegislationwastomake"allpersonsbornintheUnitedStates"citizensoftheUnitedStates,andtoensurethatallcitizensretainedthesamebasicrights"ineveryStateandTerritoryintheUnitedStates"as"whitecitizens"regardlessoftheir"raceandcolor"and"withoutregardtoanypreviousconditionofslaveryorinvoluntaryservitude.
"CivilRightsActof1866,ch.
31,sec.
1,14Stat.
27,27(1866)(emphasissupplied).
*302Ofori-Tenkorang,2005WL2280211,at*5(footnoteomitted).
FouryearsafterenactingtheCivilRightsActof1866,n4whichintroducedtheprovisionthatwouldlaterbecomeSection1981,Congressre-enactedtheprovisionintheVotingRightsActof1870.
Thatstatutebroadenedthescopeofthelawtocovernotmerely"allpersonsbornintheUnitedStatesandnotsubjecttoanyforeignpower,"n5seeCivilRightsActof1866,1,butrather,"allpersonswithinthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,"seeVotingRightsActof1870,16.
The1870Actalsoretainedthelanguagereferringtotheprovisionofequalrights"ineveryStateandTerritoryintheUnitedStates.
"Id.
n4Section1oftheCivilRightsActof1866states,inrelevantpart,thatallpersonsbornintheUnitedStatesandnotsubjecttoanyforeignpower.
.
.
areherebydeclaredtobecitizensoftheUnitedStates;andsuchcitizens,ofeveryraceandcolor,withoutregardtoanypreviousconditionofslaveryorinvoluntaryservitude.
.
.
shallhavethesameright,ineveryStateandTerritoryintheUnitedStates,tomakeandenforcecontracts,tosue,beparties,andgiveevidence,toinherit,purchase,lease,sell,hold,andconveyrealandpersonalproperty,andtofullandequalbenefitofalllawsandproceedingsforthesecurityofpersonandproperty,asisenjoyedbywhitecitizens,andshallbesubjecttolikepunishment,pains,andpenalties,andtononeother,anylaw,statute,ordinance,regulation,orcustom,tothecontrarynotwithstanding.
CivilRightsActof1866,ch.
31,1,14Stat.
27,27(emphasisadded).
n5Section16oftheVotingRightsActof1870states,inrelevantpart,thatallpersonswithinthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesshallhavethesamerightineveryStateandTerritoryintheUnitedStatestomakeandenforcecontracts,tosue,beparties,giveevidence,andtothefullandequalbenefitofalllawsandproceedingsforthesecurityofpersonandpropertyasisenjoyedbywhitecitizens,andshallbesubjecttolikepunishment,pains,penalties,taxes,licenses,andexactionsofeverykind,andnoneother,anylaw,statute,ordinance,regulation,orcustomtothecontrarynotwithstanding.
VotingRightsActof1870,ch.
114,16,16Stat.
140,144(emphasisadded).
Likethe1870versionofthisstatute,Section1981limitsitsapplicationtopersonswithinU.
S.
territory.
Thestatutenotonlyrestrictscoveragetoconducttakingplaceinour"State[s]"or"Territor[ies],"butalsoconfinestheavailabilityofitsprotectionsto"personswithinthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates.
"Noneofoursistercircuitshasaddressedinapublisheddecisionwhether42U.
S.
C.
1981appliesextraterritorially,butthosedistrictcourtsthathaveconsideredthequestionhaveunanimouslyagreedthatthestatutedoesnotapplyoutsidetheUnitedStates.
See,e.
g.
,Ortiz-Bonv.
UniversidadAutonomadeGuadalajara,382F.
Supp.
2d293,296-97(D.
P.
R.
2005);deLazzariBarbosav.
Merck&Co.
,No.
Civ.
01-CV-2235,2002WL32348281,at*2(E.
D.
Pa.
Mar.
11,2002);Mithaniv.
J.
P.
MorganChase&Co.
,No.
01CIV5928,2001WL1488213,at*1(S.
D.
N.
Y.
Nov.
21,2001);Gantcharv.
UnitedAirlines,No.
93C1457,1995WL798600,at*2(N.
D.
Ill.
Apr.
21,1995);Theusv.
PioneerHi-BredInt'l,Inc.
,738F.
Supp.
1252,1255(S.
D.
Iowa1990).
ItisnoteworthythatinothercontextswhereCongresshasdecidedtoextendtheapplicationofcivilrightsstatutestocoverconductoccurringoutsidethejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,ithasdonesothroughexplicitlegislativeamendments.
Forinstance,Section109oftheCivilRightsActof1991,Pub.
L.
No.
102-166,105Stat.
1071,1077,amendedthedefinitionof"employee"forpurposesofTitleVIIandtheADAtoprovidethat"with*303respecttoemploymentinaforeigncountry,[the]termincludesanindividualwhoisacitizenoftheUnitedStates.
"42U.
S.
C.
Ё2000e(f),12111(4);seealsoTorricov.
Int'lBus.
Machs.
Corp.
,213F.
Supp.
2d390,399(S.
D.
N.
Y.
2002)("Thelanguageofthe1991amendmentstotheADAandTitleVII.
.
.
appl[ies]thosestatutesextraterritoriallytoU.
S.
citizens"'withrespecttoemploymentinaforeigncountry'quoting42U.
S.
C.
2000e(f)),12111(4))).
Similarly,in1984,CongressamendedthedefinitionofemployeeinSection11(f)oftheAgeDiscriminationinEmploymentActof1967,29U.
S.
C.
621etseq.
("ADEA"),to"'mak[e]provisionsofthe[ADEA]applytocitizensoftheUnitedStatesemployedinforeigncountriesbyU.
S.
corporationsortheirsubsidiaries,'"Aramco,499U.
S.
at259,111S.
Ct.
1227(alterationinoriginal)(quotingS.
Rep.
No.
98-467,at2(1984)).
SeePubL.
No.
98-459,802,98Stat.
1767,1792(1984)(amendingthedefinitionoftheterm"employee"intheADEAtoinclude"anyindividualwhoisacitizenoftheUnitedStatesemployedbyanemployerinaworkplaceinaforeigncountry"(codifiedat29U.
S.
C.
630(f))).
n6n6CongresslimitedtheextraterritorialforceofTitleVII,theADAandtheADEAbyprovidingthat(1)withrespecttoanexpatriateU.
S.
citizenemployee,actionsofemployersthatwouldotherwisebeunlawfularenotunlawfulifcompliancewiththerelevantstatutewouldcausetheemployertoviolatethelawsofthecountryinwhichtheemployeeworks,see42U.
S.
C.
Ё2000e-l(b),12112(c)(1);29U.
S.
C.
623(f)(1);and(2)thesestatutesdonotapplytotheforeignoperationsofaforeigncorporationunlessthecorporationis"controlled"byaU.
S.
employer,see42U.
S.
C.
Ё2000e-1(c)(2),12112(c)(2);29U.
S.
C.
623(h)(2).
C.
AllegedDiscriminationinSouthAfricaWeconsiderfirstwhethertheDistrictCourtproperlydismissedclaimsinvolvingallegeddiscriminationthatoccurredwhileOforiwaslivingandworkinginSouthAfrica.
See,e.
g.
,Compl.
P16(allegingthat,afterhistransfertoSouthAfrica,OforiwasforcedtoworkinalessdesirableofficethanotherSouthAfricanemployees);id.
P18("FromthetimethathebeganworkinginSouthAfrica,Ofori[was].
.
.
singled.
.
.
outforparticularscrutinyandridicule.
")(emphasisadded);id.
P23(Oforireceivedhis"onlypoorperformancereview"whileworkinginSouthAfrica);id.
PP25-36(claimingthatOforiwasimproperlysuspendedafterhavingbeenwronglyaccusedofstealingfromthebusinessmanwhoseofficeheshared).
OforicontendswithrespecttotheseandallofhisallegationsthatSection1981neednotbeappliedextraterritoriallyinorderforhimtoprevailbecauseundera"centerofgravity"test,hisemploymentcontractplacedhimwithinthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesdespitethefactthat"someoftheevents"occurredoverseas.
Br.
ofPl.
-Appellant("Pl'sBr.
")at23,25.
Inparticular,heclaims,interalia,thatthecontractwasformedintheUnitedStatesandthattheallegeddiscriminatoryactsaffectinghimwhilehewasoverseasweredirectedbyexecutivesatAIG'sofficesintheUnitedStates.
Seeid.
at13-14.
OforicontendsthattheDistrictCourterroneouslydeclinedtoengageina"balancingofcontacts"analysiswithrespecttoaspectsofhisemploymentrelationshiphavingrootsoreffectswithintheUnitedStates.
Seeid.
at35.
Hethereforearguesthathisclaims,includingthosearisingoutofconductoccurringentirelywhilehewaslivingandworkinginSouthAfrica,wereimproperlydismissed.
Theseargumentsareunavailingforseveralreasons.
First,asnotedabove,theplaintextofSection1981unambiguouslyrequires*304thatapersonbe"withinthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,"42U.
S.
C.
1981(a),inordertoassertrightsunderthestatute.
WecanfindnothinginthestatutorylanguageindicatingCongress'sintenttoallowthoseoutsidetheterritorialjurisdictionoftheUnitedStatestoraiseSection1981claimsmerelybecausetherelevantemploymentcontractwasinitiallyformedintheUnitedStatesorbecausetherelevantdiscriminationwasdirectedbypersonswhowerethemselvesintheUnitedStates.
Accordingly,weholdthatabsenta"clearstatement,"Aramco,499U.
S.
at258,111S.
Ct.
1227,ofcongressionalintenttoextendcoverage"beyondplacesoverwhichtheUnitedStateshassovereigntyorhassomemeasureoflegislativecontrol,"id.
at248,111S.
Ct.
1227(internalquotationmarksomitted),thestatute'slanguageprovidingrightsto"personswithinthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,"42U.
S.
C.
1981(a),onlyprotectspersonswithintheUnitedStates'territorialjurisdiction.
SeePfeifferv.
Wm.
WrigleyJr.
Co.
,755F.
2d554,556(7thCir.
1985)(applyingthepresumptionagainstextraterritorialitytotheADEApriortothe1991amendments,seeanteat302-303,because"[t]henormalbasisofnationalsovereigntyisterritorial").
Second,themeredecisionbyadefendantintheUnitedStatestodiscriminateagainstemployeesabroadcannotserveasthebasisforaclaimpursuanttoSection1981.
Thestatuteprohibitsactsofdiscriminationcommittedagainst"personswhoarewithinthejurisdictionofUnitedStates,"42U.
S.
C.
1981(a)(emphasisadded).
SeeOrtiz-Bou,382F.
Supp.
2dat296-97(holdingthatdiscriminatoryactsthat"manifestedthemselves"inaforeigncountryarenotcoveredbySection1981);Theus,738F.
Supp.
at1253("Adecisiontodiscriminate[madeintheUnitedStates].
.
.
doesnotcreateaclaimunderthecivilrightsacts-theremustbeanact.
"(citingLandriganv.
CityofWarwick,628F.
2d736,742(1stCir.
1980))).
Accordingly,Section1981'sterritoriallimitationisdefinedbythelocationofthesubjectofthediscrimination,notbythelocationofthedecisionmaker.
Weagreewiththosecourtsthathaveheld"thatanindividual,whoseprimaryworkstationisabroad,cannotcharacterizeotherwiseextraterritorialemploymentasdomesticsolelybecauseemploymentdecisionsweremade.
.
.
intheUnitedStates.
"Shekoyanv.
SibleyInt'lCorp.
,217F.
Supp.
2d59,68(D.
D.
C.
2002);seealsoPfeiffer,755F.
2dat559(holding,beforetheamendmentprovidingtheADEAwithextraterritorialforce,seenote2ante,thatanADEAclaimbyanAmericanemployeeagainstanAmericanemployerwasproperlydismissedbecausetheemployee"livedandworked"overseas);DeYoreov.
BellHelicopterTextron,Inc.
,785F.
2d1282,1283(5thCir.
1986)(same).
NotwithstandingOfori'sargumentsthatvariousdecisionsconcerninghistreatmentinSouthAfricaweremadebyexecutivesintheUnitedStatesandthathe"feelstheeffectsofAIG'sdiscriminationagainsthimintheU.
S.
,"Pl'sBr.
at31,weholdthattheactualdiscriminatoryactsthatOforiallegedlyexperiencedwhilehewaslivingandworkinginSouthAfricatookplaceoutsidetheUnitedStates.
SeedeLazzariBarbosa,2002WL32348281,at*2("Thekeyfactorindeterminingtheapplicability"ofSection1981toanemployeewhospendstimeabroadis"theemployee'srelevantworkstation.
"(internalquotationmarksomitted)).
Third,thestatute'sfocuson"persons"(asopposedto"contracts"or"employment")"withinthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates"supportsSection1981'spurelydomesticapplication.
Inparticular,wefindunpersuasiveplaintiff'sargumentthatweshouldoverlookhisphysicalpresenceoutsidetheUnitedStatesbecausethe*305"centerofgravity"ofhisemploymentcontractwasintheUnitedStates.
Thecasesrelieduponbyplaintiffinwhichcourtshaveapplieda"centerofgravity"analysishaveariseninstatutorycontextsthatdidnotrequirepersonalpresenceintheUnitedStates.
InTorrico,forexample,theDistrictCourtappliedthe"centerofgravity"testtoanemploymentcontracttodeterminewhethertheplaintiff'sworkabroadconstituted"employmentinaforeigncountry"undertheamendedADA.
Torrico,213F.
Supp.
2dat400(quoting42U.
S.
C.
12111(4)).
Moreover,inInreMaxwellCommunicationCorp.
,186B.
R.
807(S.
D.
N.
Y.
1995),thecourtconductedasimilaranalysisingaugingwhetherafund"transfer"wasdomesticorextraterritorialunder11U.
S.
C.
547.
Id.
at815-20.
Inneithercasedidthestatuteatissuerequirethattheallegedlyaggrieved"person[]"be"withinthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,"42U.
S.
C.
1981(a).
Fourth,weagreewiththeDistrictCourt'sconclusionthatpermittingSection1981claimstoproceedwheneveraplaintiffassertssubstantial"contacts"withtheUnitedStates-evenwheretheconductofwhichplaintiffcomplainsoccurredwhileplaintiffwasoverseas-wouldgreatlyexpandthescopeofSection1981inamannercontrarytothestatute'splainlanguage.
AstheCourtofAppealsfortheThirdCircuitconcludedinananalogouscircumstanceinvolvingtheextraterritorialapplicationoftheNationalLaborRelationsAct("NLRA"),relianceona"balancingofcontacts"testtodetermine,asathresholdmatter,whetherextraterritorialapplicationofthestatuteisrequiredwouldeffectively"manufacturejurisdictionintheabsenceofaclearlyexpressedcongressionalintenttoextend[thestatute]toUnitedStatescitizenstemporarilyworkingabroadforaUnitedStatesemployer.
"AsplundhTreeExpertCo.
v.
NLRB,365F.
3d168,178(3dCir.
2004)(decliningtoadoptthe"balanceofcontacts"testandrejectingtheargumentthatextraterritorialapplicationoftheNLRAwasproperbecausetherewasaU.
S.
-based"employmentrelationship"betweenaU.
S.
corporationandtwoofitsdischargedemployeeswhowereonatemporaryworkassignmentinCanada).
Finally,weunderscorethatitisnotourroletodecidewhether42U.
S.
C.
1981should,asamatterofpublicpolicy,applyextraterritoriallytoemployeesofU.
S.
corporationsstationedoverseas.
Wearenotfreetoignoretheclearly-statedpurposeofCongressandexpandSection1981toprotectpersonsoutsidethe"jurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,"nomatterhowsympatheticthesepersonsortheirclaimsmaybe.
Fortheforegoingreasons,wedeclinetoadopta"centerofgravitytest"orengageina"balancingofcontacts"analysisthatwouldintroducemuchuncertaintyintothelaw.
Cf.
Kaczmarekv.
AlliedChem.
Corp.
,836F.
2d1055,1057(7thCir.
1987)(Posner,J.
)(noting,inchoiceoflawcontext,thatproponentsof"new,flexiblestandards,suchas'interestanalysis'"hadaccorded"toolittleweighttothevirtuesofsimplicity"andthatinterestanalysishad"causedpervasiveuncertainty,highercostoflitigation,[and]moreforumshopping").
Instead,therelevantinquiryiswhetherparticularactsofdiscriminationoccurredwhileplaintiffwas"withinthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,"42U.
S.
C.
1981(a),orwhethertheyoccurredwhenplaintiffwasoutsidethejurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesandthereforebeyondtheprescribedreachofSection1981.
TheaboveactsofallegeddiscriminationthatOforiexperiencedinSouthAfricaoccurredwhenhewasnolonger"withinthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates.
"42U.
S.
C.
1981(a).
Accordingly,theDistrictCourtproperlydismissed*306Ofori'sSection1981claimsinsofarastheywerepredicatedontheseallegations.
D.
AllegedDiscriminationintheUnitedStatesWeconsidernextwhethertheDistrictCourtproperlydismissedclaimsinvolvingallegeddiscriminationthatoccurredwhileOforiwasintheUnitedStates.
Oforiclaims,interalia,thatAIG(1)discriminatedagainsthiminthe"formation"andthe"modification"ofhisemploymentcontractbeforeheleftforSouthAfrica,ReplyBr.
ForPl.
-Appellant("Pl'sReplyBr.
")at8;Compl.
PP8,10;and(2)tookactionwhilehewas"stillphysicallypresentintheU.
S.
,"Pl'sReplyBr.
at13,tosegregatehimfromhiswhitecolleaguesinSouthAfricaand"arrang[e]forhimtoworkintheoffice"ofadisreputableSouthAfricanbusinessman,Compl.
PP8-12,16-17.
n7n7InhisreplybriefOforicontendsthatthedecisiontosegregatehimfromotherwhitecolleagueswasmadewhilehewasstillworkingintheUnitedStates.
Whilecertainparagraphsofthecomplaintsupportthisassertion,seeCompl.
P17("Beforehebeganworkingintheofficeofthebusinessman,Oforidiscoveredthatthebusinessmanhadbeenimplicatedinanumberofquestionablebusinessdeals.
.
.
"),otherparagraphssuggestthatthedecisionwasmadeafterOforiarrivedinSouthAfrica,seeCompl.
P16("WhenAIGtransferredOforitoSouthAfrica,CassanoandJonesdecidedthatOforiwouldnotworkinthemainofficeinJohannesburg.
").
ConstruingallallegationsinthelightmostfavorabletoOfori,seeMakarovav.
UnitedStates,201F.
3d110,113(2dCir.
2000),weassumeforthepurposesofthismotion,thatthedecisiontosegregateOforifromotherAIGemployeeswasmadewhileOforiwasstillintheUnitedStates.
Nevertheless,wehighlightthisapparentambiguity,whichweassumethepartieswillresolveduringdiscovery.
Applyingtheforegoinganalysisofthestatute'swordingandhistory,weconcludethattheDistrictCourtimproperlydismissedplaintiff'sSection1981claimsinsofarastheyrelatetotheseallegations.
Incategoricallyconcludingthat"theallegeddiscriminationoccurredoutsidetheterritorialjurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,"theDistrictCourtdidnottakeaccountofplaintiff'sallegationthathewaspresentintheUnitedStateswhentheseparticularactsofallegeddiscriminationoccurred.
ConductthatoccurredwhileplaintiffwaswithintheUnitedStatesclearlysatisfiesthestatute'srequirementthatapersonbe"withinthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,"42U.
S.
C.
1981(a),andthereforemayserveasthebasisforaclaimunderSection1981thatplaintiffwasnotaffordedthe"sameright[aswhitecitizens]within[a]State[or]Territory"to"makeandenforce"hisemploymentcontract,id.
Inthecircumstancespresentedhere,areasonablejurymightconcludethatAIG'sallegeddecisiontorelocateOforitoSouthAfricatoworkinunfavorableconditionsamountedtoracialdiscriminationwhileOforiwasstill"withinthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates.
"n842U.
S.
C.
1981(a).
n8AlthoughOfori'scomplaintappearstoallegethatthedecisiontosendhimtoSouthAfricawaspartiallyfinalizedorconfirmedwhilehewasinLondon"enroutefromNewYorktoJohannesburgonabusinesstrip,"seeCompl.
PP9,15,thecomplaintalsosuggeststhatthedecisiontotransferhimtoSouthAfricahadalreadybeenmadebeforehearrivedinLondon,seeid.
(allegingthat"[AIGexecutives]CassanoandJonesagreedwithOfori'simpendingtemporaryrelocationtoSouthAfrica)(emphasisadded).
ThefactsallegedinthecomplaintthusindicatethatthedecisiontosendOforiabroadwasmadewhilehewas"withinthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates.
"Accordingly,weneednotdecideherewhetherallegeddiscriminationthatoccurswhileaplaintiffwhoresidesandworksintheUnitedStateshappenstobetravelingabroadcansupportaclaimunderSection1981.
Cf.
Torrico,213F.
Supp.
2dat403("[It]appearsobviousinthecaseofatwo-weekbusinesstripabroad.
.
.
thattheemployee'splaceofemploymentistheUnitedStatesandthatanemployercannotevadetheapplicationoftheantidiscriminationlaws.
");deLazzariBarbosa,2002WL32348281,at*7(holdingthat"[t]hekeyfactorindeterminingtheapplicability"ofSection1981toanemployeewhospendstimeabroadis"therelevantworkstation")(quotationmarksomitted).
*307Inaddition,Oforiallegedthat"[i]nDecember2003,[he]wastoldthathewouldnotreceiveabonusfromAIGfortheworkthathehadperformedforAIGin2003,"andthathesubsequentlyreceivedabonusonlyone-sixthoftheamounthereceivedin2002.
Compl.
P24.
ThereisnodisputethatOforiwaslivinginSouthAfricainDecember2003,andhehasnotallegedanyspecificdiscriminatoryactrelatingtothebonusthatoccurredbeforethen.
Atoralargument,Ofori'scounselcontendedthatbecausethebonuswasmeanttorewardperformanceforallof2003,muchofwhichOforispentlivingandworkingintheUnitedStates,theawardingofadiminishedyear-endbonuswasnecessarilyanactofallegeddiscriminationthatoccurredintheUnitedStates.
Wedisagree.
IntheabsenceofevidenceofarelevantdiscriminatoryactiontakenagainstOforibeforehisworklocationchangedtoSouthAfrica,hewouldnotbeabletorecoverunderSection1981fortheallegedlydiscriminatorybonusdecision.
Nevertheless,becauseOforiwaslivingandworkingintheUnitedStatesformostoftheperiodthatthebonuswasintendedtocover,itisreasonabletoinferthatadiscriminatoryactwithrespecttothebonusmayhavebeentakenagainsthimwhilehewasstillintheUnitedStates.
SinceallreasonableinferencesmustbedrawninOfori'sfavoratthispreliminarystageofthelitigation,seeTwombly,425F.
3dat106,theDistrictCourtshouldnothavedismissedhisSection1981claimsinsofarasheallegesthatthedecisiontoawardhimadiminishedbonusconstitutedracialdiscriminationwhilehewasstillintheUnitedStates.
SeeEternityGlobalMasterFundLtd.
v.
MorganGuar.
TrustCo.
ofN.
Y.
,375F.
3d168,177(2dCir.
2004)("Atthepleadingstage.
.
.
theissueisnotwhetheraplaintiffwillultimatelyprevailbutwhethertheclaimantisentitledtoofferevidencetosupporttheclaims.
")(internalquotationmarksomitted).
Accordingly,wevacatetheDistrictCourt'sdismissalofOfori'sclaimsinsofarastheyassertdiscriminationrelatingto(1)Ofori'sinitialassignmentoverseas,includinganypreparationsorarrangementsmadeintheUnitedStatesbeforehisdeparture,and(2)thebonushereceivedfor2003.
Tosummarize:Weholdthat(1)CongresshasnotextendedSection1981toapplytoclaimsarisingfromdiscriminationthatoccurredwhileaplaintiffwasnot"withinthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,"42U.
S.
C.
1981(a);(2)theDistrictCourtproperlydismissedplaintiff'sSection1981claimsinsofarastheyseekrecoveryforallegeddiscriminatoryactsthatoccurredwhilehewaslivingandworkinginSouthAfrica;and(3)theDistrictCourterredindismissingplaintiff'sSection1981claimsinsofarastheyseekrecoveryforallegeddiscriminatoryactsthatoccurredwhilehewasintheUnitedStates.
****WethusaffirminpartandvacateinpartthejudgmentoftheDistrictCourtandremandthecauseforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.
APPENDIXBSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesNIKE,INC.
,etal.
,Petitioners,v.
MarcKASKY.
No.
02-575.
539U.
S.
654,123S.
Ct.
2554,156L.
Ed.
2d580,71USLW4602,June26,2003.
WalterDellinger,O'Melveny&MyersLLP,Washington,DC,DavidJ.
Brown,JamesN.
Penrod,Morgan,Lewis&Bockius,LLP,SanFrancisco,CA,LaurenceH.
Tribe,Cambridge,MA,ThomasC.
Goldstein,AmyHowe,Goldstein&Howe,P.
C.
,Washington,DC,forpetitioners.
PatrickJ.
Coughlin,Randi,Dawn,Bandman,AlbertH.
Meyerhoff,FrankJ.
Janecek,Jr.
,SylviaSum,Milberg,Weiss,Bershad,Hynes&Lerach,SanFrancisco,CA,PaulR.
Hoeber,SanFrancisco,CA,AlanM.
Caplan,PhilipNeumark,RoderickP.
Bushnell,AprilM.
Strauss,Bushnell,Caplan&Fielding,LLP,SanFrancisco,CA,forrespondents.
ForU.
S.
SupremeCourtbriefs,see:2003WL898993(Pet.
Brief)2003WL1844849(Resp.
Brief)2003WL1922453(Reply.
Brief)*655PERCURIAM.
Thewritofcertiorariisdismissedasimprovidentlygranted.
*656JusticeSTEVENS,withwhomJusticeGINSBURGjoins,andwithwhomjusticeSOUTERjoinsastoPartIII,concurring.
Beginningin1996,Nikewasbesiegedwithaseriesofallegationsthatitwasmistreatingandunderpayingworkersatforeignfacilities.
SeeApp.
toPet.
forCert.
3a.
Nikerespondedtothesechargesinnumerousways,suchasbysendingoutpressreleases,writingletterstotheeditorsofvariousnewspapersaroundthecountry,andmailingletterstouniversitypresidentsandathleticdirectors.
Seeid.
,at3a-4a.
Inaddition,in1997,NikecommissionedareportbyformerAmbassadortotheUnitedNationsAndrewYoungonthelaborconditionsatNikeproductionfacilities.
Seeid.
,at67a.
Aftervisiting12factories,"Youngissuedareportthatcommentedfavorablyonworkingconditionsinthefactoriesandfoundnoevidenceofwidespreadabuseormistreatmentofworkers.
"Ibid.
InApril1998,respondentMarcKasky,aCaliforniaresident,suedNikeforunfairanddeceptivepracticesunderCalifornia'sUnfairCompetitionLaw,Cal.
Bus.
&Prof.
CodeAnn.
17200etseq.
(West1997),andFalseAdvertisingLaw,17500etseq.
Respondentassertedthat"inordertomaintainand/orincreaseitssales,"Nike**2555madeanumberof"falsestatementsand/ormaterialomissionsoffact"concerningtheworkingconditionsunderwhichNikeproductsaremanufactured.
LodgingofPetitioners2(P1).
Respondentalleged"noharmordamageswhatsoeverregardinghimselfindividually,"id.
,at4-5(P8),butratherbroughtthesuit"onbehalfoftheGeneralPublicoftheStateofCaliforniaandoninformationandbelief,"id.
,at3(P3).
Nikefiledademurrertothecomplaint,contendingthatrespondent'ssuitwasabsolutelybarredbytheFirstAmendment.
Thetrialcourtsustainedthedemurrerwithoutleavetoamendandenteredajudgmentofdismissal.
App.
toPet.
forCert.
80a-81a.
Respondentappealed,andtheCaliforniaCourtofAppealaffirmed,holdingthatNike'sstatements*657"form[ed]partofapublicdialogueonamatterofpublicconcernwithinthecoreareaofexpressionprotectedbytheFirstAmendment.
"Id.
,at79a.
TheCaliforniaCourtofAppealalsorejectedrespondent'sargumentthatitwaserrorforthetrialcourttodenyhimleavetoamend,reasoningthattherewas"noreasonablepossibility"thatthecomplaintcouldbeamendedtoallegefactsthatwouldjustifyanyrestrictionsonwhatwas-inthecourt'sview-Nike's"noncommercialspeech.
"Ibid.
Onappeal,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtreversedandremandedforfurtherproceedings.
Thecourtheldthat"[b]ecausethemessagesinquestionweredirectedbyacommercialspeakertoacommercialaudience,andbecausetheymaderepresentationsoffactaboutthespeaker'sownbusinessoperationsforthepurposeofpromotingsalesofitsproducts,.
.
.
[the]messagesarecommercialspeech.
"27Cal.
4th939,946,119Cal.
Rptr.
2d296,45P.
3d243,247(2002).
However,thecourtemphasizedthatthesuit"isstillatapreliminarystage,andthatwhetheranyfalserepresentationsweremadeisadisputedissuethathasyettoberesolved.
"Ibid.
Wegrantedcertioraritodecidetwoquestions:(1)whetheracorporationparticipatinginapublicdebatemay"besubjectedtoliabilityforfactualinaccuraciesonthetheorythatitsstatementsare'commercialspeech'becausetheymightaffectconsumers'opinionsaboutthebusinessasagoodcorporatecitizenandtherebyaffecttheirpurchasingdecisions";and(2)evenassumingtheCaliforniaSupremeCourtproperlycharacterizedsuchstatementsascommercialspeech,whetherthe"FirstAmendment,asappliedtothestatesthroughtheFourteenthAmendment,permit[s]subjectingspeakerstothelegalregimeapprovedbythatcourtinthedecisionbelow.
"Pet.
forCert.
i.
Today,however,theCourtdismissesthewritofcertiorariasimprovidentlygranted.
Inmyjudgment,theCourt'sdecisiontodismissthewritofcertiorariissupportedbythreeindependentlysufficient*658reasons:(1)thejudgmententeredbytheCaliforniaSupremeCourtwasnotfinalwithinthemeaningof28U.
S.
C.
1257;(2)neitherpartyhasstandingtoinvokethejurisdictionofafederalcourt;and(3)thereasonsforavoidingtheprematureadjudicationofnovelconstitutionalquestionsapplywithspecialforcetothiscase.
IThefirstjurisdictionalprobleminthiscaserevolvesaroundthefactthattheCaliforniaSupremeCourtneverenteredafinaljudgment.
CongresshasgrantedthisCourtappellatejurisdictionwithrespecttostatelitigationonlyafterthehigheststatecourtinwhichjudgmentcouldbehadhasrenderedafinaljudgmentordecree.
Seeibid.
Aliteralinterpretationofthestatutewouldprecludeourreviewwheneverfurtherproceedingsremaintobedeterminedinastatecourt,"nomatterhowdissociatedfromtheonlyfederalissue"inthecase.
RadioStationWOW,Inc.
v.
Johnson,326U.
S.
120,124,65S.
Ct.
1475,89L.
Ed.
569(1945).
Wehave,however,abjuredsucha"mechanical"constructionofthestatute,andacceptedjurisdictionincertainexceptional"situationsinwhichthehighest**2556courtofaStatehasfinallydeterminedthefederalissuepresentinaparticularcase,butinwhichtherearefurtherproceedingsinthelowerstatecourtstocome.
"CoxBroadcastingCorp.
v.
Cohn,420U.
S.
469,477,95S.
Ct.
1029,43L.
Ed.
2d328(1975).
n1n1Notably,werecognizedinCoxthatinmost,ifnotall,oftheseexceptionalsituations,the"additionalproceedingsanticipatedinthelowerstatecourts.
.
.
wouldnotrequirethedecisionofotherfederalquestionsthatmightalsorequirereviewbytheCourtatalaterdate.
"420U.
S.
,at477,95S.
Ct.
1029.
NikearguesthatthiscasefitswithinthefourthcategoryofsuchcasesidentifiedinCox,whichcoversthosecasesinwhich"thefederalissuehasbeenfinallydecidedinthestatecourtswithfurtherproceedingspendinginwhichthepartyseekingreview"mightprevailonnonfederalgrounds,"reversalofthestatecourtonthefederalissuewouldbepreclusiveofanyfurtherlitigationontherelevantcauseofaction,"*659and"refusalimmediatelytoreviewthestate-courtdecisionmightseriouslyerodefederalpolicy.
"Id.
,at482-483,95S.
Ct.
1029.
IneachofthethreecasesthattheCourtplacedinthefourthcategoryinCox,thefederalissuehadnotonlybeenfinallydecidedbythestatecourt,butalsowouldhavebeenfinallyresolvedbythisCourtwhethertheCourtagreedordisagreedwiththestatecourt'sdispositionoftheissue.
Thus,inConstructionLaborersv.
Curry,371U.
S.
542,83S.
Ct.
531,9L.
Ed.
2d514(1963),thefederalissuewaswhethertheNationalLaborRelationsBoardhadexclusivejurisdictionoverthecontroversy;inMercantileNat.
BankatDallasv.
Langdeau,371U.
S.
555,83S.
Ct.
520,9L.
Ed.
2d523(1963),thefederalissuewaswhetheraspecialfederalvenuestatuteappliedtoimmunizethedefendantsinastate-courtaction;andinMiamiHeraldPublishingCo.
v.
Tornillo,418U.
S.
241,94S.
Ct.
2831,41L.
Ed.
2d730(1974),thefederalissuewaswhetheraFloridastatuterequiringanewspapertocarryacandidate'sreplytoaneditorialwasconstitutional.
InCoxitself,thefederalquestionwaswhethertheStatecouldprohibitthenewsmediafrompublishingthenameofarapevictim.
Innoneofthosecaseswouldtheresolutionofthefederalissuehavebeenaffectedbyfurtherproceedings.
InNike'sview,thiscasefitswithinthefourthCoxcategorybecauseifthisCourtholdsthatNike'sspeechwasnoncommercial,then"reversalofthestatecourtonthefederalissuewouldbepreclusiveofanyfurtherlitigationontherelevantcauseofaction.
"420U.
S.
,at482-483,95S.
Ct.
1029;seealsoReplyBriefforPetitioners4;ReplytoBriefinOpposition4-5.
Notably,Nike'sargumentassumesthatallofthespeechatissueinthiscaseiseithercommercialornoncommercialandthatthespeechthereforecanbeneatlyclassifiedaseitherabsolutelyprivilegedornot.
Theoretically,NikeiscorrectthatwecouldholdthatallofNike'sallegedlyfalsestatementsareabsolutelyprivilegedevenifmadewiththesortof"malice"definedinNewYorkTimesCo.
v.
Sullivan,376U.
S.
254,84S.
Ct.
710,11L.
Ed.
2d686(1964),therebyprecludinganyfurtherproceedingsoramendmentsthatmightovercome*660Nike'sFirstAmendmentdefense.
However,giventheinterlocutorypostureofthecasebeforeustoday,theCourtcouldalsotakeanumberofotherpathsthatwouldneitherprecludefurtherproceedingsinthestatecourts,norfinallyresolvetheFirstAmendmentquestionsinthiscase.
Forexample,ifweweretoaffirm,Nikewouldalmostcertainlycontinuetomaintainthatsome,ifnotall,ofitschallengedstatementswereprotectedbytheFirstAmendmentandthattheFirstAmendmentconstrainstheremedythatmaybeimposed.
Or,ifweweretoreverse,wemightholdthatthespeechatissueinthiscaseissubjecttosuitonlyifmadewithactualmalice,therebyinvitingrespondenttoamendhiscomplainttoallegesuchmalice.
SeeTr.
ofOralArg.
42-43.
OrwemightconcludethatsomeofNike'sspeechiscommercialandsomeis**2557noncommercial,therebyrequiringfurtherproceedingsinthestatecourtsoverthelegalstandardsthatgovernthecommercialspeech,includingwhetheractualmalicemustbeproved.
Inshort,becauseanopiniononthemeritsinthiscasecouldtakeanyoneofanumberofdifferentpaths,itisnotclearwhetherreversaloftheCaliforniaSupremeCourtwould"bepreclusiveofanyfurtherlitigationontherelevantcauseofaction[in]thestateproceedingsstilltocome.
"Cox,420U.
S.
,at482-483,95S.
Ct.
1029.
NorisitclearthatreachingthemeritsofNike'sclaimsnowwouldservethegoalofjudicialefficiency.
For,evenifweweretodecidetheFirstAmendmentissuespresentedtoustoday,moreFirstAmendmentissuesmightwellremaininthiscase,makingpiecemealreviewoftheFederalFirstAmendmentissueslikely.
SeeFlyntv.
Ohio,451U.
S.
619,621,101S.
Ct.
1958,68L.
Ed.
2d489(1981)(percuriam)(notingthatinmost,ifnotall,ofthecasesfallingwithinthefourCoxexceptions,therewas"noprobabilityofpiecemealreviewwithrespecttofederalissues").
Accordingly,inmyview,thejudgmentoftheCaliforniaSupremeCourtdoesnotfallwithinthefourthCoxexceptionandcannotberegardedasfinal.
Thesecondreasonwhy,inmyview,thisCourtlacksjurisdictiontohearNike'sclaimsisthatneitherpartyhasstandingtoinvokethejurisdictionofthefederalcourts.
SeeWhitmorev.
Arkansas,495U.
S.
149,154-155,110S.
Ct.
1717,109L.
Ed.
2d135(1990)("ArticleIII,ofcourse,givesthefederalcourtsjurisdictionoveronly'casesandcontroversies,'andthedoctrineofstandingservestoidentifythosedisputeswhichareappropriatelyresolvedthroughthejudicialprocess").
Withoutallegingthathehasanypersonalstakeintheoutcomeofthiscase,respondentisproceedingasaprivateattorneygeneralseekingtoenforcetwoCaliforniastatutesonbehalfofthegeneralpublicoftheStateofCalifornia.
Hehasnotassertedanyfederalclaim;evenifhehadattemptedtodoso,hecouldnotinvokethejurisdictionofafederalcourtbecausehefailedtoallegeanyinjurytohimselfthatis"distinctandpalpable.
"Warthv.
Seldin,422U.
S.
490,501,95S.
Ct.
2197,45L.
Ed.
2d343(1975).
Thus,respondentdoesnothaveArticleIIIstanding.
Forthatreason,werethefederalrulesofjusticiabilitytoapplyinstatecourts,thissuitwouldhavebeen"dismissedattheoutset.
"ASARCOInc.
v.
Kadish,490U.
S.
605,617,109S.
Ct.
2037,104L.
Ed.
2d696(1989).
n2n2BecausetheconstraintsofArticleIIIdonotapplyinstatecourts,seeASARCO,490U.
S.
,at617,109S.
Ct.
2037,theCaliforniacourtsarefreetoadjudicatethiscase.
Eventhoughrespondentwouldnothavehadstandingtocommencesuitinfederalcourtbasedontheallegationsinthecomplaint,Nike-relyingonASARCO-contendsthatithasstandingtobringthecasetothisCourt.
SeeReplyBriefforPetitioners5.
InASARCO,agroupoftaxpayersbroughtasuitinstatecourtseekingadeclarationthattheState'slawonmineralleasesonstatelandswasinvalid.
AftertheArizonaSupremeCourt"grantedplaintiffsadeclaratoryjudgmentthatthestatelawgoverningmineral*662leasesisinvalid,"490U.
S.
,at611,109S.
Ct.
2037,n3thedefendantssoughttoinvokethejurisdictionofthisCourt.
Inholdingthatthedefendantshadstandingtoinvokethejurisdictionofthefederalcourts,wenotedthatthestateproceedingshad"resultedinafinaljudgmentalteringtangiblelegalrights,"id.
,at619,109S.
Ct.
2037,andweadoptedthefollowingrationale:n3TheArizonaSupremeCourtalsoremandedthecaseforthetrialcourttodeterminewhatfurtherreliefmightbeappropriate.
Seeid.
,at611,109S.
Ct.
2037.
Thus,whileleavingopenthequestionofremedyonremand,thestate-courtjudgmentinASARCOfinallydecidedthefederalissue.
Seeid.
,at612,109S.
Ct.
2037(holdingthatthefederalissueshadbeenadjudicatedbythestatecourtandthattheremainingissueswouldnotgiverisetoanyfurtherfederalquestion).
**2558"Whenastatecourthasissuedajudgmentinacasewhereplaintiffsintheoriginalactionhadnostandingtosueundertheprinciplesgoverningthefederalcourts,wemayexerciseourjurisdictiononcertiorariifthejudgmentofthestatecourtcausesdirect,specific,andconcreteinjurytothepartieswhopetitionforourreview,wheretherequisitesofacaseorcontroversyarealsomet.
"Id.
,at623-624,109S.
Ct.
2037.
TherationalesupportingourjurisdictionalholdinginASARCO,however,doesnotextendtothisquitedifferentcase.
UnlikeASARCO,inwhichthestate-courtproceedingsendedinadeclaratoryjudgmentinvalidatingastatelaw,no"finaljudgmentalteringtangiblelegalrights"hasbeenenteredintheinstantcase.
Id.
,at619,109S.
Ct.
2037.
Rather,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtmerelyheldthatrespondent'scomplaintwassufficienttosurviveNike'sdemurrerandtoallowthecasetogoforward.
ToapplyASARCOtothiscasewouldeffectadrasticexpansionofASARCO'sreasoning,extendingittocoveraninterlocutoryrulingthatmerelyallowsatrialtoproceed.
n4BecauseIdonotbelievesucha*663significantexpansionofASARCOiswarranted,myviewisthatNikelackstherequisiteArticleIIIstandingtoinvokethisCourt'sjurisdiction.
n4JusticeBREYERwouldextendASARCO-whichprovidesanexceptiontoournormalstandingrequirement-toencompassnotmerelyadefendant'schallengetoanadversestate-courtjudgmentbutalsoadefendant'smotiontodismissastate-courtcomplaintallegingthatsemicommercialspeechwasfalseandmisleading.
Seepost,at2561-2562(dissentingopinion).
Regardlessofwhetherthe"speech-chillinginjury"associatedwiththedefenseofsuchacasemayormaynotoutweighthebenefitofhavingapublicforuminwhichthedefendantmayestablishthetruthofthecontestedstatements,suchanunprecedentedexpansionwouldsurelychangethecharacterofourstandingdoctrine,greatlyextendingASARCO'sreach.
IIIThethirdreasonwhyIbelievethisCourthasappropriatelydecidedtodismissthewritasimprovidentlygrantedcentersaroundtheimportanceofthedifficultFirstAmendmentquestionsraisedinthiscase.
AsJusticeBrandeisfamouslyobserved,theCourthasdeveloped,"foritsowngovernanceinthecasesconfessedlywithinitsjurisdiction,aseriesofrulesunderwhichithasavoidedpassinguponalargepartofalltheconstitutionalquestionspresseduponitfordecision.
"Ashwanderv.
TVA,297U.
S.
288,346,56S.
Ct.
466,80L.
Ed.
688(1936)(concurringopinion).
ThesecondofthoserulesisthattheCourtwillnotanticipateaquestionofconstitutionallawinadvanceofthenecessityofdecidingit.
Id.
,at346-347,56S.
Ct.
466.
Thenoveltyandimportanceoftheconstitutionalquestionspresentedinthiscaseprovidegoodreasonforadheringtothatrule.
ThiscasepresentsnovelFirstAmendmentquestionsbecausethespeechatissuerepresentsablendingofcommercialspeech,noncommercialspeechanddebateonanissueofpublicimportance.
n5Seepost,at2565-2566.
Ontheonehand,*664iftheallegationsofthecomplaintaretrue,directcommunicationswithcustomersandpotentialcustomersthatwereintendedtogeneratesales-andpossiblytomaintainorenhancethemarketvalueofNike'sstock-containedsignificantfactualmisstatements.
Theregulatoryinterestinprotectingmarketparticipantsfrombeingmisledbysuchmisstatementsisofthehighestorder.
Thatiswhywehave**2559broadly(perhapsoverbroadly)statedthat"thereisnoconstitutionalvalueinfalsestatementsoffact.
"Gertzv.
RobertWelch,Inc.
,418U.
S.
323,340,94S.
Ct.
2997,41L.
Ed.
2d789(1974).
Ontheotherhand,thecommunicationswerepartofanongoingdiscussionanddebateaboutimportantpublicissuesthatwasconcernednotonlywithNike'slaborpractices,butwithsimilarpracticesusedbyothermultinationalcorporations.
SeeBriefforAmericanFederationofLaborandCongressofIndustrialOrganizationsasAmicusCuriae2.
Knowledgeablepersonsshouldbefreetoparticipateinsuchdebatewithoutfearofunfairreprisal.
Theinterestinprotectingsuchparticipantsfromthechillingeffectoftheprospectofexpensivelitigationisthereforealsoamatterofgreatimportance.
See,e.
g.
,BriefforExxonMobiletal.
asAmiciCuriae2;BriefforPfizerInc.
asAmicusCuriae11-12.
Thatiswhywehaveprovidedsuchbroadprotectionformisstatementsaboutpublicfiguresthatarenotanimatedbymalice.
SeeNewYorkTimesCo.
v.
Sullivan,376U.
S.
254,84S.
Ct.
710,11L.
Ed.
2d686(1964).
n5FurthercomplicatingthenovelFirstAmendmentissuesinthiscaseisthefactthatinthisCourtNikeseekstochallengetheconstitutionalityoftheprivateattorneygeneralprovisionsofCalifornia'sUnfairCompetitionLawandFalseAdvertisingLaw.
Itapparentlydidnotraisethisspecificchallengebelow.
WhetherthescopeofprotectionaffordedtoNike'sspeechshoulddifferdependingonwhetherthespeechischallengedinapublicoraprivateenforcementaction,seepost,at2566,isadifficultandimportantquestionthatIbelievewouldbenefitfromfurtherdevelopmentbelow.
Whethersimilarprotectionshouldextendtocovercorporatemisstatementsmadeaboutthecorporationitself,orwhetherweshouldpresumethatsuchacorporatespeakerknowswherethetruthlies,arequestionsthatmayhavetobedecidedinthislitigation.
Thecorrectanswertosuchquestions,however,ismorelikelytoresultfromthestudyofafullfactualrecordthanfromareviewofmereunprovenallegationsinapleading.
Indeed,thedevelopmentofsuch*665arecordmayactuallycontributeinapositivewaytothepublicdebate.
Inallevents,IamfirmlyconvincedthattheCourthaswiselydecidednottoaddresstheconstitutionalquestionspresentedbythecertioraripetitionatthisstageofthelitigation.
Accordingly,Iconcurinthedecisiontodismissthewritasimprovidentlygranted.
JusticeKENNEDY,dissenting.
Idissentfromtheorderdismissingthewritofcertiorariasimprovidentlygranted.
JusticeBREYER,withwhomJusticeO'CONNORjoins,dissenting.
Duringthe1990's,humanrightsandlaborgroups,newspapereditorialwriters,andothersseverelycriticizedtheNikecorporationforitsallegedinvolvementindisreputablelaborpracticesabroad.
SeeLodgingofPetitioners7-8,96-118,127-162,232-235,272-273.
Thiscasefocusesuponwhether,andtowhatextent,theFirstAmendmentprotectscertaineffortsbyNiketorespond-effortsthattooktheformofwrittencommunicationsinwhichNikeexplainedordeniedmanyofthechargesmade.
ThecasearisesunderprovisionsofCalifornialawthatauthorizeaprivateindividual,actingasa"privateattorneygeneral,"effectivelytoprosecuteabusinessforunfaircompetitionorfalseadvertising.
Cal.
Bus.
&Prof.
CodeAnn.
Ё17200,17204,17500,17535(West1997).
Therespondent,MarcKasky,hasclaimedthatNikemadefalseormisleadingcommercialstatements.
AndhebasesthisclaimuponstatementsthatNikemadeinninespecificdocuments,includingpressreleasesandletterstotheeditorofanewspaper,toinstitutionalcustomers,andtorepresentativesofnongovernmentalorganizations.
BriefforRespondent5.
TheCaliforniaCourtofAppealaffirmeddismissalofKasky'scomplaintwithoutleavetoamendonthegroundthat*666"therecorddisclosesnoncommercialspeech,addressedtoatopicofpublicinterestandrespondingtopubliccriticismofNike'slaborpractices.
"App.
toPet.
forCert.
78a.
TheCourtofAppealaddedthatitsaw"nomeritto[Kasky's]scattershotargumentthathemightstillbeabletostateacauseofactiononsometheoryallowingcontent-relatedabridgementofnoncommercialspeech.
"Id.
,at79a.
**2560KaskyappealedtotheCaliforniaSupremeCourt.
Hefocusedonthecommercialnatureofthecommunicationsatissue,whilepointingtolanguageinthisCourt'scasesstatingthattheFirstAmendment,whileofferingprotectiontotruthfulcommercialspeech,doesnotprotectfalseormisleadingcommercialspeech,seeCentralHudsonGas&Elec.
Corp.
v.
PublicServ.
Comm'nofN.
Y.
,447U.
S.
557,563,100S.
Ct.
2343,65L.
Ed.
2d341(1980).
Kaskydidnotchallengethelowercourts'denialofleavetoamendhiscomplaint.
Healsoconcededthat,ifNike'sstatementsfelloutsidethecategoryof"commercialspeech,"theFirstAmendmentprotectedthemand"theultimateissueisresolvedinNike'sfavor.
"Appellant'sBriefontheMeritsinNo.
S087859(Cal.
),p.
1;accord,Appellant'sReplyBriefinNo.
S087859(Cal.
),pp.
1-2.
TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtheldthatthespeechatissuefallswithinthecategoryof"commercialspeech.
"Consequently,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtconcluded,theFirstAmendmentdoesnotprotectNike'sstatementsinsofarastheywerefalseormisleading-regardlessofwhateverroletheyplayedinapublicdebate.
27Cal.
4th939,946,969,119Cal.
Rptr.
2d296,45P.
3d243,247,262(2002).
Hence,accordingtotheCaliforniaSupremeCourt,theFirstAmendmentdoesnotbarKasky'slawsuit-alawsuitthatallegesfalseadvertisingandrelatedunfaircompetition(which,foreaseofexposition,Ishallhenceforthusethewords"falseadvertising"todescribe).
ThebasicissuepresentedhereiswhethertheCaliforniaSupremeCourt'sultimateholdingislegallycorrect.
DoestheFirstAmendmentpermitKasky'sfalseadvertising"prosecution"togoforward*667Afterreceiving34briefsonthemerits(including31amicusbriefs)andhearingoralargument,theCourtdismissesthewritofcertiorari,therebyrefusingtodecidethequestionspresented,atleastfornow.
Inmyview,however,thequestionspresenteddirectlyconcernthefreedomofAmericanstospeakaboutpublicmattersinpublicdebate,nojurisdictionalrulepreventsusfromdecidingthosequestionsnow,anddelayitselfmayinhibittheexerciseofconstitutionallyprotectedrightsoffreespeechwithoutmakingtheissuesignificantlyeasiertodecidelateron.
Undersimilarcircumstances,theCourthasfoundthatfailuretoreviewaninterlocutoryorderentails"aninexcusabledelayofthebenefits[ofappeal]Congressintendedtogrant.
"Millsv.
Alabama,384U.
S.
214,217,86S.
Ct.
1434,16L.
Ed.
2d484(1966).
Ibelievedelaywouldbesimilarlywronghere.
Iwoulddecidethequestionspresented,asweinitiallyintended.
IArticleIII's"caseorcontroversy"requirementdoesnotbarusfromhearingthiscase.
ArticleIIIrequiresalitiganttohave"standing"-i.
e.
,toshowthathehassuffered"injuryinfact,"thattheinjuryis"fairlytraceable"toactionsoftheopposingparty,andthatafavorabledecisionwilllikelyredresstheharm.
Bennettv.
Spear,520U.
S.
154,162,117S.
Ct.
1154,137L.
Ed.
2d281(1997)(internalquotationmarksomitted).
Kasky,thestate-courtplaintiffinthiscase,mightindeedhavehadtroublemeetingthoserequirements,forKasky'scomplaintspecificallystatesthatNike'sstatementsdidnotharmKaskypersonally.
LodgingofPetitioners4-5(P8).
ButNike,thestate-courtdefendant-notKasky,theplaintiff-hasbroughtthecasetothisCourt.
AndNikehasstandingtocomplainhereofKasky'sactions.
TheseactionsthreatenNikewith"injuryinfact.
"Asa"privateattorneygeneral,"KaskyisineffectenforcingastatelawthatthreatenstodiscourageNike'sspeech.
SeeCal.
Bus.
&Prof.
CodeAnn.
Ё17204,17535(West1997).
ThisCourthasoftenfoundthattheenforcementofsucha*668lawworksconstitutionalinjuryevenifenforcementproceedingsarenotcomplete-indeed,evenifenforcementisno**2561morethanafuturethreat.
See,e.
g.
,Houstonv.
Hill,482U.
S.
451,459,n.
7,107S.
Ct.
2502,96L.
Ed.
2d398(1987)(standingwherethereis"'agenuinethreatofenforcement'"againstfuturespeech);Steffelv.
Thompson,415U.
S.
452,459,94S.
Ct.
1209,39L.
Ed.
2d505(1974)(same).
Cf.
FirstNat.
BankofBostonv.
Bellotti,435U.
S.
765,785,n.
21,98S.
Ct.
1407,55L.
Ed.
2d707(1978)(The"burdenandexpenseoflitigating[an]issue"itselfcan"undulyimpingeontheexerciseoftheconstitutionalright");Rosenbloomv.
Metromedia,Inc.
,403U.
S.
29,52-53,91S.
Ct.
1811,29L.
Ed.
2d296(1971)(pluralityopinion)("Theverypossibilityofhavingtoengageinlitigation,anexpensiveandprotractedprocess,isthreatenough").
Andathreatofacivilaction,likethethreatofacriminalaction,canchillspeech.
SeeNewYorkTimesCo.
v.
Sullivan,376U.
S.
254,278,84S.
Ct.
710,11L.
Ed.
2d686(1964)("PlainlytheAlabamalawofcivillibelis'aformofregulationthatcreateshazardstoprotectedfreedomsmarkedlygreaterthanthosethatattendrelianceuponthecriminallaw'").
Here,ofcourse,anactiontoenforceCalifornia'slaws-lawsthatdiscouragecertainkindsofspeech-amountstomorethanjustagenuine,futurethreat.
Itisapresentreality-onethatdiscouragesNikefromengaginginspeech.
Ittherebycreates"injuryinfact.
"Supra,at2560.
Further,thatinjuryisdirectly"traceable"toKasky'spursuitofthislawsuit.
AndthisCourt'sdecision,iffavorabletoNike,can"redress"thatinjury.
Ibid.
SinceNike,notKasky,nowseekstobringthiscasetofederalcourt,whyshouldKasky'sstandingproblemsmakeacriticaldifferenceInASARCOInc.
v.
Kadish,490U.
S.
605,618,109S.
Ct.
2037,104L.
Ed.
2d696(1989),thisCourtspecifiedthatadefendantwithstandingmaycomplainofanadversestate-courtjudgment,eveniftheotherparty-thepartywhobroughtthesuitinstatecourtandobtainedthatjudgment-wouldhavelackedstandingtobringacaseinfederalcourt.
SeealsoVirginiav.
Hicks,ante,539U.
S.
,at120-121,123S.
Ct.
2191.
*669InASARCO,statetaxpayers(whoordinarilylackfederal"standing")suedastateagencyinstatecourt,seekingajudgmentdeclaringthattheState'smineralleasingproceduresviolatedfederallaw.
See490U.
S.
,at610,109S.
Ct.
2037.
ASARCOandothermineralleaseholdersintervenedasdefendants.
Ibid.
Theplaintifftaxpayersobtainedastate-courtjudgmentdeclaringthattheState'smineralleasingproceduresviolatedfederallaw.
ThedefendantmineralleaseholdersaskedthisCourttoreviewthejudgment.
AndthisCourtheldthattheleaseholdershadstandingtoseekreversalofthatjudgmenthere.
TheCourtwrote:"Whenastatecourthasissuedajudgmentinacasewhereplaintiffsintheoriginalactionhadnostandingtosueundertheprinciplesgoverningthefederalcourts,wemayexerciseourjurisdictiononcertiorari[1]ifthejudgmentofthestatecourtcausesdirect,specific,andconcreteinjurytothepartieswhopetitionforourreview,where[2]therequisitesofacaseorcontroversyarealsomet.
"Id.
,at623-624,109S.
Ct.
2037(bracketednumbersadded).
Noonedeniesthat"requisitesofacaseorcontroversy"otherthanstandingaremethere.
Butisthere"direct,specific,andconcreteinjury"InASARCOitself,such"injury"consistedofthethreat,arisingoutofthestatecourt'sdetermination,thatthedefendants'leasesmightlaterbecanceled(if,say,athirdpartychallengedthoseleasesinlaterproceedingsandshowedtheywerenot"madefor'truevalue'").
Id.
,at611-612,618,109S.
Ct.
2037.
Herethat"injury"consistsofthethreat,arisingoutofthestatecourt'sdetermination,thatdefendantNike'sspeechonpublicmattersmightbe"chilled"immediatelyandlegallyrestrained**2562inthefuture.
Seesupra,at2560-2561.
Whereisthemeaningfuldifference*670Iconcedethatthestate-courtdeterminationinASARCOwasmore"final"inthesensethatitunambiguouslyorderedadeclaratoryjudgment,see490U.
S.
,at611-612,109S.
Ct.
2037(findingthattwoexceptionstonormalfinalityrequirementsapplied),whilethestate-courtdeterminationhere,wheresuchdeclaratoryreliefwasnotsought,takestheformofamoreintrinsicallyinterlocutoryholding,seeante,at2557-2558,andn.
4(STEVENS,J.
,concurring).
Butwithrespectto"standing,"whatpossibledifferencecouldthatcircumstancemakeThestatecourtinASARCOfinallyresolvedfederalquestionsrelatedtostateleaseholdprocedures;thestatecourtherefinallyresolvedthebasicfreespeechissue-decidingthatNike'sstatementsconstituted"commercialspeech"which,when"falseormisleading,"thegovernment"mayentirelyprohibit,"27Cal.
4th,at946,119Cal.
Rptr.
2d296,45P.
3d,at247.
Afteransweringthebasicthresholdquestion,thestatecourtinASARCOleftother,morespecificquestionsforresolutioninfurtherpotentialorpendingproceedings,490U.
S.
,at611-612,109S.
Ct.
2037.
Thestatecourtheredidthesame.
InASARCO,therelevantfurtherproceedingsmighthavetakenplaceinanewlawsuit;heretheywouldhavetakenplaceinthesamelawsuit.
Butthatdifferencehaslittlebearingonthelikelihoodofinjury.
Indeed,giventhenatureofthespeech-chillinginjuryhereandthefactthatitislikelytooccurimmediately,IshouldthinkthatconstitutionalstandinginthiscasewouldflowfromstandinginASARCOafortiori.
IINofederalstatutepreventsusfromhearingthiscase.
Therelevantstatutelimitsourjurisdictionto"[f]inaljudgmentsordecreesrenderedbythehighestcourtofaStateinwhichadecisioncouldbehad.
"28U.
S.
C.
1257(a)(emphasisadded).
ButtheCaliforniaSupremeCourtdeterminationbeforeus,whiletechnicallyaninterimdecision,isa"finaljudgmentordecree"forpurposesofthisstatute.
*671ThatisbecausethisCourthasinterpretedthestatute'sphrase"finaljudgment"torefer,incertaincircumstances,toastatecourt'sfinaldeterminationofafederalissue,evenifthedeterminationofthatissueoccursinthemidstofongoinglitigation.
CoxBroadcastingCorp.
v.
Cohn,420U.
S.
469,477,95S.
Ct.
1029,43L.
Ed.
2d328(1975).
Indoingso,theCourthassaidthatittherebytakesa"pragmaticapproach,"nota"mechanical"approach,to"determiningfinality.
"Id.
,at477,486,95S.
Ct.
1029(emphasisadded).
Andithassetforthseveralcriteriathatdeterminewhenaninterimstate-courtjudgmentis"final"forpurposesofthestatute,therebypermittingourconsiderationofthefederalmatteratissue.
ThefourcriteriarelevantherearethosedeterminingwhetheradecisionfallswithinwhatisknownasCox's"fourthcategory"or"fourthexception.
"Theyconsistofthefollowing:(1)"thefederalissuehasbeenfinallydecidedinthestatecourts";(2)infurtherpendingproceedings,"thepartyseekingreviewheremightprevailonthemeritsonnonfederalgrounds,thusrenderingunnecessaryreviewofthefederalissuebythisCourt";(3)"reversalofthestatecourtonthefederalissuewouldbepreclusiveofanyfurtherlitigationontherelevantcauseofactionratherthanmerelycontrollingthenatureandcharacterof,ordeterminingtheadmissibilityofevidencein,thestateproceedingsstilltocome";and(4)"arefusalimmediatelytoreviewthestate-courtdecisionmightseriouslyerodefederalpolicy.
"Id.
,at482-483,95S.
Ct.
1029.
Eachofthesefourconditionsissatisfiedinthiscase.
AViewedfromCox's"pragmatic"perspective,"thefederalissuehasbeenfinallydecidedinthestatecourts.
"*672Id.
,at482,486,95S.
Ct.
1029.
TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtconsideredninespecificinstancesofNike'scommunications-thoseuponwhichKaskysayshebasedhislegalclaims.
BriefforRespondent5.
Theseinclude(1)aletterfromNike'sDirectorofSportsMarketingtouniversitypresidentsandathleticdirectorspresenting"facts"aboutNike'slaborpractices;(2)a30-pageillustratedpamphletaboutthosepractices;(3)apressrelease(postedonNike'sWebsite)commentingonthosepractices;(4)apostingonNike'sWebsiteaboutits"codeofconduct";(5)adocumentonNike'sletterheadsharingits"perspective"onthelaborcontroversy;(6)apressreleaserespondingto"[s]weatshop[a]llegations";(7)aletterfromNike'sDirectorofLaborPracticestotheChiefExecutiveOfficerofYWCAofAmerica,discussingcriticismsofitslaborpractices;(8)aletterfromNike'sEuropeanpublicrelationsmanagertoarepresentativeofInternationalRestructuringEducationNetworkEurope,discussingNike'spractices;and(9)alettertotheeditorofTheNewYorkTimestakingissuewithacolumnist'scriticismsofNike'spractices.
Ibid;seealsoLodgingofPetitioners121-125,182-191,198-230,270,285,322-324.
TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtthenheldthatallthisspeechwas"commercialspeech"andconsequentlythe"governmen[t]mayentirelyprohibit"thatspeechifitis"falseormisleading.
"27Cal.
4th,at946,119Cal.
Rptr.
2d296,45P.
3d,at247.
TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtthus"finallydecided"thefederalissue-whethertheFirstAmendmentprotectsthespeechinquestionfromlegalattackonthegroundthatitis"falseormisleading.
"AccordingtotheCaliforniaSupremeCourt,nothingatallremainstobedecidedwithrespecttothatfederalquestion.
IfwepermittheCaliforniaSupremeCourt'sdecisiontostand,inalllikelihoodthislitigationwillnowsimplyseektodeterminewhetherNike'sstatementswerefalseormisleading,andperhapswhetherNikewasnegligentinmakingthosestatements-mattersinvolvingquestionsofCalifornialaw.
*673Iconcedethatsomeother,possiblyrelatedfederalconstitutionalissuemightariseuponremandfortrial.
Butsomesuchlikelihoodisalwayspresentinongoinglitigation,particularlywhere,asinpastFirstAmendmentcases,thisCourtreviewsinterimstate-courtdecisionsregarding,forexample,requestsforatemporaryinjunctionorastaypendingappeal,or(ashere)denialofamotiontodismissacomplaint.
E.
g.
,NationalSocialistPartyofAmericav.
Skokie,432U.
S.
43,97S.
Ct.
2205,53L.
Ed.
2d96(1977)(percuriam)(denialofastaypendingappeal);OrganizationforaBetterAustinv.
Keefe,402U.
S.
415,91S.
Ct.
1575,29L.
Ed.
2d1(1971)(temporaryinjunction);Millsv.
Alabama,384U.
S.
214,86S.
Ct.
1434,16L.
Ed.
2d484(1966)(motiontodismiss).
SomesuchlikelihoodwaspresentinCoxitself.
TheCoxplaintiff,thefatherofarapevictim,suedanewspaperinstatecourt,assertingarighttodamagesunderstatelaw,whichforbadepublicationofarapevictim'sname.
Thetrialcourt,believingthatthestatuteimposedstrictliabilityonthenewspaper,grantedsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthevictim.
SeeCoxBroadcastingCorp.
v.
Cohn,231Ga.
60,64,200S.
E.
2d127,131(1973),rev'd,420U.
S.
469,95S.
Ct.
1029,43L.
Ed.
2d328(1975).
TheStateSupremeCourtaffirmedinpartandreversedinpart.
ThatcourtagreedwiththeplaintiffthatstatelawprovidedacauseofactionandthatthecauseofactionwasconsistentwiththeFirstAmendment.
231Ga.
,at64,200S.
E.
2d,at131.
However,theStateSupremeCourtdisagreedaboutthestandardofliability.
Ratherthanstrictliability,thestandard,itsuggested,wasoneof"wilfulornegligentdisregardforthefactthatreasonablemenwouldfindtheinvasionhighlyoffensive.
"Ibid.
Anditremanded**2564thecasefortrial.
Thelikelihoodthatfurtherproceedingswouldaddressfederalconstitutionalissues-concerningtherelationbetween,forinstance,thenatureoftheprivacyinvasion,thedefendants'stateofmind,andtheFirstAmendment-wouldseemtohavebeenfarhighertherethaninanyfurtherproceedingshere.
Despitethatlikelihood,andbecausetheStateSupremeCourtheldineffectthattheFirstAmendment*674didnotprotectthespeechatissue,thisCourtheldthatitsdeterminationofthatconstitutionalquestionwas"plainlyfinal.
"Cox,420U.
S.
,at485,95S.
Ct.
1029.
California'sSupremeCourthasmadeasimilarholding,anditsdeterminationofthefederalissueissimilarly"final.
"BThesecondconditionspecifiesthat,infurtherproceedings,the"partyseekingreviewhere"-i.
e.
,Nike-"mightprevailonthemeritsonnonfederalgrounds.
"Id.
,at482,95S.
Ct.
1029.
IfNikeshowsattrialthatitsstatementsareneitherfalsenormisleading,norotherwise"unfair"underCalifornialaw,Cal.
Bus.
&Prof.
CodeAnn.
Ё17200,17500(West1997),itwillshowthatthosestatementsdidnotconstituteunfaircompetitionorfalseadvertisingunderCalifornialaw-anonfederalground.
Anditwill"prevailonthemeritsonnonfederalgrounds,"Cox,420U.
S.
,at482,95S.
Ct.
1029.
Thesecondconditionissatisfied.
CThethirdconditionrequiresthat"reversalofthestatecourtonthefederalissue.
.
.
bepreclusiveofanyfurtherlitigationontherelevantcauseofaction.
"Id.
,at482-483,95S.
Ct.
1029.
Takenliterally,thisconditionissatisfied.
AnoutrightreversaloftheCaliforniaSupremeCourtwouldreinstatethejudgmentoftheCaliforniaintermediatecourt,whichaffirmeddismissalofthecomplaintwithoutleavetoamend.
Supra,at2559.
ItwouldforbidKaskytoproceedinsofarasKasky'sstate-lawclaimsfocusontheninedocumentspreviouslydiscussed.
AndKaskyhasconcededthathisclaimsrestonstatementsmadeinthosedocuments.
BriefforRespondent5.
IconcedethatthisCourtmightnotreversetheCaliforniaSupremeCourtoutright.
Itmighttakesomemiddleground,neitheraffirmingnorfullyreversing,thatpermitsthislitigationtocontinue.
Seeante,at2556-2557(STEVENS,J.
,concurring).
ButwhyisthatpossibilityrelevantThe*675thirdconditionspecifiesthat"reversal"-notsomeotherdisposition-willpreclude"furtherlitigation.
"Thesignificanceofthispointismadeclearbyourpriorcases.
InCox,thisCourtfoundjurisdictiondespitethefactthatitmighthavechosenamiddleFirstAmendmentground-perhaps,forexample,precludingliability(forpublicationofarapevictim'sname)wherebasedonnegligence,butnotwherebasedonmalice.
Andsuchanintermediateground,whileproducingajudgmentthattheStateSupremeCourtdecisionwaserroneous,wouldhavepermittedthelitigationtogoforward.
Cf.
BriefforAppellantsinCoxBroadcastingCorp.
v.
Cohn,O.
T.
1973,No.
73-938,p.
68,n.
127(arguingthat"'summaryjudgment,ratherthantrialonthemerits,isapropervehicleforaffordingconstitutionalprotection'").
SimilarlyinMiamiHeraldPublishingCo.
v.
Tornillo,418U.
S.
241,94S.
Ct.
2831,41L.
Ed.
2d730(1974),theCourtmighthaveheldthattheConstitutionpermitsaStatetorequireanewspapertocarryacandidate'sreplytoaneditorial-butonlyincertaincircumstances-therebypotentiallyleavingafactualissuewhetherthosecircumstancesapplied.
Cf.
BriefforAppellantinMiamiHeraldPublishingCo.
v.
Tornillo,O.
T.
1973,No.
73-797,pp.
26-27,andn.
60(notingthattheStateSupremeCourtbaseditsdecisioninpartonaconclusion,unsupportedbyrecordevidence,thatcontrolofmassmediahadbecomesubstantiallyconcentrated).
Onecanimaginesimilar**2565intermediatepossibilitiesinvirtuallyeverycaseinwhichtheCourthasfoundthisconditionsatisfied,includingthoseinvolvingtechnicalquestionsofstatutoryjurisdictionandvenue,cf.
ante,at2556(STEVENS,J.
,concurring).
Conceivably,onemightarguethatthethirdconditionisnotsatisfiedheredespiteliteralcompliance,seesupra,at2564,onthegroundthat,fromapragmaticperspective,outrightreversalisnotaveryrealisticpossibility.
Butthatpropositionsimplyisnotso.
Inmyview,theprobabilitiesarepreciselythecontrary,andatruereversalisahighlyrealisticpossibility.
*676TounderstandhowIreachthisconclusion,thereadermustrecallthenatureoftheholdingunderreview.
TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtheldthatcertainspecificcommunications,exemplifiedbytheninedocumentsuponwhichKaskyrestshiscase,fallwithinthataspectoftheCourt'scommercialspeechdoctrinethatsaystheFirstAmendmentprotectsonlytruthfulcommercialspeech;hence,totheextentcommercialspeechisfalseormisleading,itisunprotected.
Seesupra,at2560.
TheCourt,however,hasadded,incommercialspeechcases,thattheFirstAmendment"'embracesattheleastthelibertytodiscusspubliclyandtruthfullyallmattersofpublicconcern.
'"ConsolidatedEdisonCo.
ofN.
Y.
v.
PublicServ.
Comm'nofN.
Y.
,447U.
S.
530,534,100S.
Ct.
2326,65L.
Ed.
2d319(1980);accord,CentralHudson,447U.
S.
,at562-563,n.
5,100S.
Ct.
2343.
AndinothercontextstheCourthasheldthatspeechonmattersofpublicconcernneeds"'breathingspace'"-potentiallyincorporatingcertainfalseormisleadingspeech-inordertosurvive.
NewYorkTimes,376U.
S.
,at272,84S.
Ct.
710;seealso,e.
g.
,Gertzv.
RobertWelch,Inc.
,418U.
S.
323,340,94S.
Ct.
2997,41L.
Ed.
2d789(1974);Time,Inc.
v.
Hill,385U.
S.
374,388-389,87S.
Ct.
534,17L.
Ed.
2d456(1967).
Thiscaserequiresustoreconcilethesepotentiallyconflictingprinciples.
Inmyview,aproperresolutionherefavorsapplicationofthelastmentionedpublic-speechprinciple,ratherthanthefirstmentionedcommercial-speechprinciple.
Consequently,Iwouldapplyaformofheightenedscrutinytothespeechregulationsinquestion,andIbelievethatthoseregulationscannotsurvivethatscrutiny.
First,thecommunicationsatissuearenotpurelycommercialinnature.
Theyarebettercharacterizedasinvolvingamixtureofcommercialandnoncommercial(public-issue-oriented)elements.
Thedocumentleastlikelytowarrantprotection-aletterwrittenbyNiketouniversitypresidentsandathleticdirectors-hasseveralcommercialcharacteristics.
SeeAppendix,infra(reproducingpages190and191ofLodgingofPetitioners).
AstheCaliforniaSupremeCourt*677implicitlyfound,27Cal.
4th,at946,119Cal.
Rptr.
2d296,45P.
3d,at247,itwaswrittenbya"commercialspeaker"(Nike),itisaddressedtoa"commercialaudience"(potentialinstitutionalbuyersorcontractees),anditmakes"representationsoffactaboutthespeaker'sownbusinessoperations"(laborconditions).
Ibid.
See,e.
g.
,Bolgerv.
YoungsDrugProductsCorp.
,463U.
S.
60,66-67,103S.
Ct.
2875,77L.
Ed.
2d469(1983).
Butthatletteralsohasothercriticallyimportantand,Ibelieve,predominantnoncommercialcharacteristicswithwhichthecommercialcharacteristicsare"inextricablyintertwined.
"Rileyv.
NationalFederationofBlindofN.
C.
,Inc.
,487U.
S.
781,796,108S.
Ct.
2667,101L.
Ed.
2d669(1988).
Foronething,theletterappearsoutsideatraditionaladvertisingformat,suchasabrieftelevisionornewspaperadvertisement.
Itdoesnotproposethepresentationorsaleofaproductoranyothercommercialtransaction,UnitedStatesv.
UnitedFoods,Inc.
,533U.
S.
405,409,121S.
Ct.
2334,150L.
Ed.
2d438(2001)(describingthisasthe"usua[l]"definitionforcommercialspeech).
Rather,thelettersuggeststhatitscontentsmightprovide**2566"informationusefulindiscussions"withconcernedfacultyandstudents.
LodgingofPetitioners190.
Onitsface,itseekstoconveyinformationto"adiverseaudience,"includingindividualswhohave"ageneralcuriosityabout,orgenuineinterestin,"thepubliccontroversysurroundingNike,Bigelowv.
Virginia,421U.
S.
809,822,95S.
Ct.
2222,44L.
Ed.
2d600(1975).
Foranotherthing,theletter'scontentmakesclearthat,incontext,itconcernsamatterthatisofsignificantpublicinterestandactivecontroversy,anditdescribesfactualmattersrelatedtothatsubjectindetail.
Inparticular,theletterdescribesNike'slaborpracticesandrespondstocriticismofthosepractices,anditdoessobecausethosepracticesthemselvesplayanimportantroleinanexistingpublicdebate.
Thisdebatewasoneinwhichparticipantsadvocated,oropposed,publiccollectiveaction.
See,e.
g.
,LodgingofPetitioners143(articleonstudentprotests),232-236(factsheetwith"BoycottNike"heading).
Seegenerally*678Rothv.
UnitedStates,354U.
S.
476,484,77S.
Ct.
1304,1L.
Ed.
2d1498(1957)(TheFirstAmendment'sprotectionsofspeechandpresswere"fashionedtoassureunfetteredinterchangeofideasforthebringingaboutofpoliticalandsocialchanges").
ThattheletterisfactualincontentdoesnotargueagainstFirstAmendmentprotection,forfacts,sometimesfactsalone,willswayourviewsonissuesofpublicpolicy.
Thesecircumstancesofformandcontentdistinguishthespeechatissueherefromthemorepurely"commercialspeech"describedinpriorcases.
See,e.
g.
,UnitedFoods,supra,at409,121S.
Ct.
2334(commercialspeech"usuallydefinedasspeechthatdoesnomorethanproposeacommercialtransaction"(emphasisadded));BoardofTrusteesofStateUniv.
ofN.
Y.
v.
Fox,492U.
S.
469,473-474,109S.
Ct.
3028,106L.
Ed.
2d388(1989)(describingthisas"thetest");CentralHudson,447U.
S.
,at561,100S.
Ct.
2343(commercialspeechdefinedas"expressionrelatedsolelytotheeconomicinterestsofthespeakeranditsaudience"(emphasisadded)).
Thespeechhereisunlikespeech-say,thewords"dolphin-safetuna"-thatcommonlyappearsinmoretraditionaladvertisingorlabelingcontexts.
Anditisunlikeinstancesofspeechwhereacommunication'scontributiontopublicdebateisperipheral,notcentral,cf.
id.
,at562-563,n.
5,100S.
Ct.
2343.
Atthesametime,theregulatoryregimeatissueherediffersfromtraditionalspeechregulationinitsuseofprivateattorneysgeneralauthorizedtoimpose"falseadvertising"liabilityeventhoughtheythemselveshavesufferednoharm.
SeeCal.
Bus.
&Prof.
CodeAnn.
Ё17204,17535(West1997).
Inthisrespect,theregulatorycontextisunlikemosttraditionalfalseadvertisingregulation.
Andthe"falseadvertising"contextdiffersfromotherregulatorycontexts-say,securitiesregulation-whereadifferentbalanceofconcernscallsfordifferentapplicationsofFirstAmendmentprinciples.
Cf.
Ohralikv.
OhioStateBarAssn.
,436U.
S.
447,456-457,98S.
Ct.
1912,56L.
Ed.
2d444(1978).
Thesethreesetsofcircumstancestakentogether-circumstancesofformat,content,andregulatorycontext-warrant*679treatingtheregulationsofspeechatissuedifferentlyfromregulationsofpurerformsofcommercialspeech,suchassimpleproductadvertisements,thatwehavereviewedinthepast.
And,whereallthreearepresent,IbelievetheFirstAmendmentdemandsheightenedscrutiny.
Second,Idoubtthatthisparticularinstanceofregulation(throughuseofprivateattorneysgeneral)cansurviveheightenedscrutiny,forthereisnoreasonable"fit"betweentheburdenitimposesuponspeechandtheimportantgovernmental"'interestserved,'"Fox,supra,at480.
Rather,theburdenimposedisdisproportionate.
IdonotdenythatCalifornia'ssystemoffalseadvertisingregulation-includingitsprovisionforprivatecausesofaction-furtherslegitimate,traditional,andimportant**2567publicobjectives.
Ithelpstomaintainanhonestcommercialmarketplace.
Ittherebyhelpsthatmarketplacebetterallocateprivategoodsandservices.
SeeVirginiaBd.
ofPharmacyv.
VirginiaCitizensConsumerCouncil,Inc.
,425U.
S.
748,765,96S.
Ct.
1817,48L.
Ed.
2d346(1976).
Italsohelpscitizensform"intelligentopinionsastohow[themarketplace]oughttoberegulatedoraltered.
"Ibid.
Butaprivate"falseadvertising"actionbroughtonbehalfoftheState,byonewhohassufferednoinjury,threatenstoimposeaseriousburdenuponspeech-atleastifextendedtoencompassthetypeofspeechatissueunderthestandardsofliabilitythatCalifornialawprovides,seeCal.
Bus.
&Prof.
CodeAnn.
Ё17200,17500(West1997)(establishingregimesofstrictliability,aswellasliabilityfornegligence);Cortezv.
PurolatorAirFiltrationProductsCo.
,23Cal.
4th163,181,96Cal.
Rptr.
2d518,999P.
2d706,717(2000)(statingthatCalifornia'sunfaircompetitionlawimposesstrictliability).
Thedelegationofstateauthoritytoprivateindividualsauthorizesapurelyideologicalplaintiff,convincedthathisopponentisnottellingthetruth,tobringintothecourtroomthekindofpoliticalbattlebetterwagedinotherforums.
Wherethatpoliticalbattleishardfought,suchplaintiffspotentiallyconstitute*680alargeandhostilecrowdfreelyabletobringprosecutionsdesignedtovindicatetheirbeliefs,andtodosounencumberedbythelegalandpracticalchecksthattendtokeeptheenergiesofpublicenforcementagenciesfocuseduponmorepurelyeconomicharm.
Cf.
ForsythCountyv.
NationalistMovement,505U.
S.
123,134-135,112S.
Ct.
2395,120L.
Ed.
2d101(1992);BantamBooks,Inc.
v.
Sullivan,372U.
S.
58,67-71,83S.
Ct.
631,9L.
Ed.
2d584(1963).
Thatthreatmeansacommercialspeakermusttakeparticularcare-considerablymorecarethanthespeaker'snoncommercialopponents-whenspeakingonpublicmatters.
Alargeorganization'sunqualifiedclaimabouttheadequacyofworkingconditions,forexample,couldleadtoliability,shouldacourtconcludeafterhearingtheevidencethatenoughexceptionsexisttowarrantqualification-evenifthoseexceptionswereunknown(butperhapsshouldhavebeenknown)tothespeaker.
Uncertaintyabouthowacourtwillviewthese,orother,statements,caneasilychillaspeaker'seffortstoengageinpublicdebate-particularlywherea"falseadvertising"law,likeCalifornia'slaw,imposesliabilitybaseduponnegligenceorwithoutfault.
SeeGertz,418U.
S.
,at340,94S.
Ct.
2997;Time,385U.
S.
,at389,87S.
Ct.
534.
Attheleast,theycreateconcernthatthecommercialspeakerengaginginpublicdebatesuffersahandicapthatnoncommercialopponentsdonot.
SeeFirstNat.
Bank,435U.
S.
,at785-786,98S.
Ct.
1407;seealsoRosenbergerv.
RectorandVisitorsofUniv.
ofVa.
,515U.
S.
819,828,115S.
Ct.
2510,132L.
Ed.
2d700(1995).
Atthesametime,itisdifficulttoseewhyCalifornianeedstopermitsuchactionsbyprivateattorneysgeneral-atleastwithrespecttospeechthatisnot"core"commercialspeechbutisentwinedwith,anddirectedtoward,amoregeneralpublicdebate.
TheFederalGovernmentregulatesunfaircompetitionandfalseadvertisingintheabsenceofsuchsuits.
15U.
S.
C.
41etseq.
AsfarasIcantell,California'sdelegationofthegovernment'senforcementauthoritytoprivateindividualsisnottraditional,andmaybeunique,Tr.
ofOralArg.
42.
Idonotseehow"falseadvertising"*681regulationcouldsufferseriousimpedimentiftheConstitutionlimitedthescopeofprivateattorneygeneralactionstocircumstanceswheremorepurelycommercialandlesspublic-debate-orientedelementspredominate.
Asthehistoricaltreatmentofspeechinthelaborcontextshows,substantialgovernmentregulationcancoexistwithFirstAmendmentprotectionsdesignedtoprovideroomforpublicdebate.
Compare,e.
g.
,NLRBv.
GisselPackingCo.
,395U.
S.
575,616-620,89S.
Ct.
1918,23L.
Ed.
2d547(1969)(upholdingprohibitionofemployercomments**2568onunionismcontainingthreatsorpromises),withThomasv.
Collins,323U.
S.
516,531-532,65S.
Ct.
315,89L.
Ed.
430(1945);Thornhillv.
Alabama,310U.
S.
88,102,60S.
Ct.
736,84L.
Ed.
1093(1940).
Thesereasonsconvincemethatitislikely,ifnothighlyprobable,that,ifthisCourtweretoreachthemerits,itwouldholdthatheightenedscrutinyapplies;that,underthecircumstanceshere,California'sdelegationofenforcementauthoritytoprivateattorneysgeneraldisproportionatelyburdensspeech;andthattheFirstAmendmentconsequentlyforbidsit.
Returningtotheproceduralpointatissue,Ibelievethisdiscussionofthemeritsshowsthatnotonlywill"reversal"oftheCaliforniaSupremeCourt"onthefederalissue"prove"preclusiveofanyfurtherlitigationontherelevantcauseofaction,"Cox,420U.
S.
,at482-483,95S.
Ct.
1029,butalsosuch"reversal"isaseriouspossibility.
Whetherwetakethewordsofthethirdconditionliterallyorconsiderthecircumstancespragmatically,thatconditionissatisfied.
DThefourthconditionisthat"arefusalimmediatelytoreviewthestate-courtdecisionmightseriouslyerodefederalpolicy.
"Id.
,at483,95S.
Ct.
1029.
Thisconditionismetbecauserefusalimmediatelytoreviewthestate-courtdecisionbeforeuswill"seriouslyerode"thefederalconstitutionalpolicyinfavoroffreespeech.
*682Ifpermittedtostand,thestatecourt'sdecisionmaywell"chill"theexerciseoffreespeechrights.
Seeid.
,at486,95S.
Ct.
1029;FortWayneBooks,Inc.
v.
Indiana,489U.
S.
46,56,109S.
Ct.
916,103L.
Ed.
2d34(1989).
Continuationofthislawsuititselfmeansincreasedexpense,and,ifNikeloses,theresultsmayincludemonetaryliability(for"restitution")andinjunctiverelief(includingpossiblecorrective"counterspeech").
See,e.
g.
,Cel-TechCommunications,Inc.
v.
LosAngelesCellularTelephoneCo.
,20Cal.
4th163,179,83Cal.
Rptr.
2d548,973P.
2d527,539(1999);ConsumersUnionofU.
S.
,Inc.
v.
Alta-DenaCertifiedDairy,4Cal.
App.
4th963,971-972,6Cal.
Rptr.
2d193,197-198(1992).
Therangeofcommunicationssubjecttosuchliabilityisbroad;inthiscase,itincludesalettertotheeditorofTheNewYorkTimes.
TheupshotisthatcommercialspeakersdoingbusinessinCaliforniamayhesitatetoissuesignificantcommunicationsrelevanttopublicdebatebecausetheyfearpotentiallawsuitsandlegalliability.
Cf.
Gertz,supra,at340,94S.
Ct.
2997(warningthatoverlystringentliabilityforfalseormisleadingspeechcan"leadtointolerableself-censorship");Time,supra,at389,87S.
Ct.
534("Fearoflargeverdictsindamagesuitsforinnocentormerelynegligentmisstatement,evenfearoftheexpenseinvolvedintheirdefense,mustinevitablycausepublishersto'steer.
.
.
wideroftheunlawfulzone'").
Thisconcernisnotpurelytheoretical.
Nikesayswithoutcontradictionthatbecauseofthislawsuitithasdecided"torestrictseverelyallofitscommunicationsonsocialissuesthatcouldreachCaliforniaconsumers,includingspeechinnationalandinternationalmedia.
"BriefforPetitioners39.
ItaddsthatithasnotreleaseditsannualCorporateResponsibilityReport,hasdecidednottopursuealistingintheDowJonesSustainabilityIndex,andhasrefused"dozensofinvitations.
.
.
tospeakoncorporateresponsibilityissues.
"Ibid.
Numerousamici-includingsomewhodonotbelievethatNikehasfullyandaccuratelyexplaineditslaborpractices-arguethatCalifornia'sdecisionwill"chill"speechand*683therebylimitthesupplyofrelevantinformationavailabletothose,suchasjournalists,whoseektokeepthepublicinformedaboutimportantpublicissues.
BriefforAmericanFederationofLaborandCongressofIndustrialOrganizationsasAmicusCuriae2-3;BriefforChamberofCommerceoftheUnitedStatesofAmericaasAmicusCuriae10-12;BriefforABCInc.
etal.
asAmici**2569Curiae6-13;BriefforPfizerInc.
asAmicusCuriae10-14.
Insum,allfourconditionsaresatisfiedhere.
Seesupra,at2562.
Hence,theCaliforniaSupremeCourt'sjudgmentfallswithinthescopeoftheterm"final"asitappearsin28U.
S.
C.
1257(a),andnostatutepreventsusfromdecidingthiscase.
IIIThereisnostrongprudentialargumentagainstdecidingthequestionspresented.
Compareante,at2558-2559(STEVENS,J.
,concurring),withAshwanderv.
TVA,297U.
S.
288,346-348,56S.
Ct.
466,80L.
Ed.
688(1936)(Brandeis,J.
,concurring).
Theseconstitutionalquestionsarenoteasyones,fortheyimplicatebothfreespeechandimportantformsofpublicregulation.
Buttheyarriveatthethresholdofthiscase,askingwhethertheConstitutionpermitsthisprivateattorneygeneral'slawsuittogoforwardonthebasisofthepleadingsathand.
Thisthresholdissuewasvigorouslycontestedanddecided,adversetoNike,below.
Cf.
Yeev.
Escondido,503U.
S.
519,534-535,112S.
Ct.
1522,118L.
Ed.
2d153(1992).
Andfurtherdevelopmentoftherecordseemsunlikelytomakethequestionspresentedanyeasiertodecidelater.
Atthesametime,waitingextractsaheavyFirstAmendmentprice.
Ifthissuitgoesforward,bothNikeandotherpotentialspeakers,outofreasonablecautionorevenanexcessofcaution,maycensortheirownexpressionwellbeyondwhatthelawmayconstitutionallydemand.
SeeTime,385U.
S.
,at389,87S.
Ct.
534;Gertz,418U.
S.
,at340,94S.
Ct.
2997.
Thatiswhata"chillingeffect"means.
Itispresenthere.
Insum,Icanfindnogoodreasonforpostponingadecisioninthiscase.
AndgiventheimportanceoftheFirstAmendmentconcernsatstake,therearestrongreasonsnottodoso.
Thepositionofatleastoneamicus-opposedtoNikeonthemeritsofitslaborpracticeclaimsbutsupportingNikeonitsfreespeechclaim-echoesafamoussentimentreflectedinthewritingsofVoltaire:"Idonotagreewithwhatyousay,butIwillfighttotheendsothatyoumaysayit.
"SeeBriefforAmericanFederationofLaborandCongressofIndustrialOrganizationsasAmicusCuriae3.
Acasethatimplicatesthatprincipleisacasethatweshoulddecide.
Iwouldnotdismissasimprovidentlygrantedthewritissuedinthiscase.
IrespectfullydissentfromtheCourt'scontrarydetermination.
*685APPENDIXTOOPINIONOFBREYER,J.
Whatfollowsisacopyofthelettertouniversitypresidentsandathleticdirectorsatissueinthiscase,LodgingofPetitioners190-191:**2570June18,1996DearPresidentandDirectorofAthletes,Asmostofyouhaveprobablyread,heardorseen,NIKELee,hasrecentlycameundermarkfromtheMadeintheUSAFoundation,andotherlabororganizers,whoclaimthatchildlaborisusedintheproductionofitsgoods.
WhileyoumayalsobeawarethatNIKEhasgoneontherecordtocategoricallydenytheseallegationsascompletelyfalseandirresponsible,Iwouldliketoextendthecourtesyofprovidingyouwithmanyofthefactsthathavebeenabsentfromthemediadiscourseonthisissue.
Ihopeyouwillfindthisinformationusefulindiscussionswithfacultyandstudentswhomaybeequallydisturbedbythesecharges.
Firstandforemost,whereverNIKEoperatesaroundtheglobe,itisguidedbyprinciplessetforthinacodeofconductthatbindsitsproductionsubcontractorstoasignedMemorandumofUnderstanding.
TheMemorandumstrictlyprohibitschildlabor,andcertifiescompliancewithapplicablegovernmentregulationsregardingminimumwageandovertime,aswellasoccupationalhealthandsafety,environmentalregulations,workerinsuranceandequalopportunityprovinces.
NIKEenforcesitsstudentsthroughdailyobservationbystaffmemberswhoareresponsibleformonitoringadherencetotheMemorandum.
NIKEcurrentlyemploysapproximately100staffmembersinAsiaalonetooverseeoperations.
EveryNIKEsubcontractorknowsthattheenforcementoftheMemorandumincludessystematic,evaluationbythird-partyauditors.
Thesethoroughreviewsincludeinterviewswithworkers,examinationofsafetyequipmentandprocedures,reviewoffreehealth-carefacilities,investigationofworkergrievancesandauditsofpayrollrecords.
Furthermore,overthepast20yearswehaveestablishedlong-termrelationshipswithselectsubcontractors,andwebelievethatoursenseofcorporateresponsibilityhasinfluencedthewaytheyconducttheirbusiness.
Afterall,itisincumbentuponleaderslikeNIKEtoensurethattheseviolationsdonotoccurinoursubcontractor'sfactories.
**2571*686Wehavefoundovertheyearsthat,giventhevastareaofouroperationsandthedifficultyofpoliciessuchanetwork,someviolationsoccur.
However,wehavebeenproudthatinallmaterialrespectsthecodeofconductiscompliedwith.
Thecodeisnotjustword.
Welivebyit.
NIKEisproudofitscontributioninhelpingtobuildeconomies,provideskills,andcreateabrighterfutureformillionsofworkersaroundtheworld.
AsaformerDirectorofAthletes,andcurrentlytheDirectorofSportsMarketingatNIKE,Iamindeedsensitivetotheseissues.
Iwouldbemorethanhappytomakemyselfavailabletoeitherdiscussthatissuesand/orreceiveanyopinionsorinsightsyoumayhave.
Wearecommittedtotheworldofsportsandallthatitstandsfor.
Iremainatyourdisposal.
Kindestregards,SteveMillerDirectorNIKESportsMarketingAPPENDIXCIntheMatteroftheApplicationoftheINTERNATIONALBROTHERHOODOFTEAMSTERSallegingarepresentationdisputepursuanttoSection2,Ninth,oftheRailwayLaborAct,asamendedinvolvingemployeesofLACSAANDTACA28NMBNo.
72CASENO.
R-6819(FileNo.
CR-6710)FINDINGSUPONINVESTIGATION-DISMISSALMay9,2001ThisdeterminationaddressesanapplicationfiledbytheInternationalBrotherhoodofTeamsters(IBTorOrganization).
TheIBTrequeststheNationalMediationBoard(Board)toinvestigatewhetherLineasAereasCostarricensesS.
A.
(LACSA),AviatecaS.
A.
(AVIATECA),NicaraguensedeAviationS.
A.
(NICA),andTACAInternationalS.
A.
(TACA),areoperatingasasingletransportationsystemknownasGrupoTACA.
TheOrganizationfurtherrequests,thatiftheBoardfindsthattheairlinesareoperatingasasingletransportationsystem,itconductanelectionamongGrupoTACA'sFleetandPassengerServiceEmployees.
Forthereasonsdiscussedbelow,theBoardfindsthereisinsufficientevidencethattheairlineslistedintheapplicationareoperatingasasingletransportationsystemknownasGrupoTACA.
Therefore,theIBT'sapplicationisdismissed.
ProceduralBackgroundOnJanuary18,2001,theIBTfiledanapplicationallegingarepresentationdisputeinvolvingtheFleetandPassengerServiceEmployeesofLACSA,TACA,AVIATECA,andNICA.
TheIBTassertedthatthecarriersareoperatingasGrupoTACA,asingletransportationsystem.
ThisapplicationwasassignedNMBFileNo.
CR-6710.
Atthetimetheapplicationwasfiled,LACSA'sFleetandPassengerServiceEmployeeswererepresentedbytheIBT.
TheinvestigationwasassignedtoMaryL.
Johnson.
OnJanuary23,2001,theBoardrequestedLACSAandTACAtoprovideinformationnecessarytodeterminetheappropriatesystemforrepresentationpurposes.
TheBoardalsoaskedtheIBTtoprovideevidenceinsupportofitspositionthattheairlinesoperateasasingletransportationsystem.
TheIBTfileditssubmissiononJanuary29,2001,andLACSAfileditssubmissiononFebruary5,2001.
AdditionalsubmissionswerefiledbytheIBTonFebruary12,2001,andbyLACSAonFebruary23,2001.
TACAdidnotfileapositionstatement.
IssuesAreLACSA,TACA,AVIATECA,andNICAoperatingasasingletransportationsystemknownasGrupoTACAContentionsIBT'sPositionTheIBTassertsthatLACSA,TACA,AVIATECA,andNICAholdthemselvesoutasGrupoTACA.
AccordingtotheOrganization,theCarriershavecombinedmanagementfunctionsandhavecombinedpersonneldocumentssuchastrainingmanuals.
TheIBTassertsthatGrupoTACAcoordinatesflightschedules,reservationssystems,marketingandsales,andthebulkpurchaseoffuelandsparepartsforLACSAandTACA.
TheOrganizationalsoassertsthatGrupoTACAcarriersadvertisecombinedroutestructureandcombinedfleet.
LACSA'sPositionLACSAstatesthatnomergerhasoccurredorwilloccur.
AccordingtoLACSA,GrupoTACAisamarketingalliance,butalloftheforeign-flagairlinesintheGrupoTACAallianceretainseparatecorporateidentities.
LACSAstatesthatitsmanagementisnotandwillnotbeintegratedwiththeothercarriers.
LACSAmaintainsthatroutesandschedulesarecontrolledbytheseparatecarriers,andthatthreeofthecarriersinGrupoTACAdonotflyU.
S.
routes.
LACSAarguesthattheBoardshoulddismisstheIBT'sapplicationforanumberofreasons.
First,LACSAassertsthat"thesinglecarrierconceptdoesnotallowjurisdictionoverinternationalcarriers.
.
.
especially.
.
.
[where]someofthecarriers.
.
.
donotflyintotheUnitedStates.
"Second,LACSAstatesthatitistheonlycarrierintheGrupoTACAalliancewithFleetandPassengerServiceEmployeesintheU.
S.
(TACAhascontractedoutitsfleetandpassengerservicework.
)Third,althoughLACSAadmitsthattheGrupoTACAallianceofairlinesisheldouttothepublicasasinglecarrierformarketingpurposes,GrupoTACAhasnoU.
S.
-basedemployeesandnooperatingcertificates.
FindingsofLawDeterminationoftheissuesinthiscaseisgovernedbytheRailwayLaborAct(RLAorAct),asamended,45U.
S.
C.
Ё151-188.
Accordingly,theBoardfindsasfollows:I.
LACSA,TACA,AVIATECA,andNICAarecommoncarriersasdefinedin45U.
S.
C.
181.
II.
IBTisalabororganizationasprovidedby45U.
S.
C.
152,Ninth.
III.
45U.
S.
C.
152,Fourth,givesemployeessubjecttoitsprovisions,"therighttoorganizeandbargaincollectivelythroughrepresentativesoftheirownchoosing.
Themajorityofanycraftorclassofemployeesshallhavetherighttodeterminewhoshallbetherepresentativeofthecraftorclassforthepurposesofthischapter.
"IV.
45U.
S.
C.
152,Ninth,providesthattheBoardhasthedutytoinvestigaterepresentationdisputesandtodesignatewhomayparticipateaseligiblevotersintheeventanelectionisrequired.
Indeterminingthechoiceofthemajorityofemployees,theBoardis"authorizedtotakeasecretballotoftheemployeesinvolved,ortoutilizeanyotherappropriatemethodofascertainingthenamesoftheirdulydesignatedandauthorizedrepresentatives.
.
.
bytheemployeeswithoutinterference,influence,orcoercionexercisedbythecarrier.
"FindingsofFactI.
GrupoTACACarriersGrupoTACAisanalliancewhichincludesLACSA,TACA,AVIATECA,andNICA.
TACA-Honduras,AVIATECA,andNICAdonotflyintotheU.
S.
,anddonothaveU.
S.
-basedfleetandpassengerservice.
TACA'sfleetandpassengerserviceworkintheU.
S.
iscontractedouttoothercarriers.
LACSAisaCostaRicanairlinewithU.
S.
operations,whichhasfleetandpassengerserviceoperationsintheU.
S.
GrupoTACA'swebsitestatesitis"anallianceoftheprincipalCentralAmericanAirlines(AVIATECA,LACSA,NICA,TACA)andTACAPERU,unitedunderonecorporateidentitytoprovidesuperiorservicetoourcustomers.
"LACSAhasaseparatewebsite,listingonlytheLACSAschedule.
TACAandLACSAusecodesharing,butretainseparateroutes.
AccordingtotheWorldAviationDirectory(WAD),AVIATECAisaGuatemalanairline.
TACAInternationalAirlines,S.
A.
isbasedinElSalvador.
NICA,whichis49%ownedbyTACA,isbasedinNicaragua.
TheWADhasnolistingforGrupoTACA.
AreviewoftheWAD'slistingsforLACSA,TACA,AVIATECA,andNICAestablishesinsufficientevidencethatdirectorsandcorporateofficersareinterlocking.
II.
ManagementandControlofLaborRelationsManualMontoya,LACSA'sDirectoroftheHumanResources,submittedadeclaration.
MontoyastatesthatheisinchargeoflaborrelationsforLACSA,attendsnegotiations,andisinvolvedindecidingaboutIBT'sgrievances.
AccordingtoMontoya,theworkperformedbyLACSAemployees"hasnotbeenmergedwithothercarriers.
Infact,LACSAhasreceivedandresolvednumerousgrievancesfromtheIBTinvolvingintegrityofworkintheclassorcraftinissuehere,andLACSAhasmaintaineditsseparatelaborandemploymentoperation.
"Montoyastatesthatitishis"understandingthatTACAhasnoemployees,butifitdidhaveemployeesintheFleetandPassengerServiceclassification.
.
.
thoseemployeescouldbesubjecttothecertificationthatexistsforTACAwithanotherlabororganization.
III.
A.
TheIBTsubmitteddeclarationsfromseveralLACSAemployees.
Accordingtooneoftheseindividuals,loadcontrolinstructionswereformerlyissuedfromCostaRica,butinthelast"twoyearssuchinstructionshavecomeexclusivelyfromTACAatSanSalvador.
Theindividualstatesfurtherthat"allflightschedulechangesemanatefromTACA.
.
.
[and]travelagencieswishingtobookgroupspace.
.
.
mustdirectrequeststhroughtheGrupoTACAsalesdepartment.
.
.
.
"TheemployeealsoassertsthatattemptstoobtaininformationregardingLACSAthroughthecompanycomputersystemaredirectedtoGrupoTACA,andthat"outsidetelephonecallstoLACSA.
.
.
atmostlocationsaregreetedwithaGrupoTACAwelcomingidentification.
"OtherLACSAemployeesstatethatGrupoTACAmanagementpersonnelsuchastheRegionalManager,SalesManager,andStationManagerbegantoreplaceLACSAmanagementbetween1994and1998.
Theemployeesalsostatethattheirtraininganddispatchcertificates,formerlyissuedbyLACSA,arenowissuedbyGrupoTACA.
B.
TheevidencesubmittedbytheIBTincludes:-Ayear2000calendarwithbothGrupoTACAandtheindividualcarriers'names;andayear2001calendarwithGrupoTACA'snameonly.
-AfaxcoversheetfromDecember2000listingGrupoTACAandAVIATECA,LACSA,NICA,andTACA;andafaxcoversheetfromJanuary2001withGrupoTACAastheprincipalname.
-AkeyringandenvelopeopenerimprintedwithGrupoTACAandAVIATECA,LACSA,NICA,andTACA.
-Variousapplications,forms,andmanualswithGrupoTACAastheprincipalname,orGrupoTACAonly.
-Varioustraininganddispatchcertificatesissuedbetween1998and2000;thoseissuedearliershowtheindividualcarriers'namesaloneortheGrupoTACAname,whilethoseissuedlatershowGrupoTACAonly.
-OldbusinesscardsandenvelopesimprintedwithLACSAandnewbusinesscardsandenvelopesimprintedwithGrupoTACAandAVIATECA,LACSA,NICA,andTACA.
-SchedulechangesfortheindividualairlinesundertheheadingGrupoTACA.
-Baggagetags,plasticbags,andticketjacketsimprintedwiththeGrupoTACAlogo.
-HotelaccommodationordersforLACSApassengersimprintedwiththeGrupoTACAlogo.
Theorderscontain"check"boxesfortheseparateairlines.
C.
SignsatticketcountersatvariousairportsdisplaytheGrupoTACAlogobutalsodisplaythespecificcarriername.
AircraftarepaintedwiththeGrupoTACAlogoandthenameoftheindividualcarrier.
DiscussionSingleTransportationSystemInTransWorldAirlines/OzarkAirlines,14NMB218(1987),theBoardenunciatedfactorswhichitexaminestodeterminewhethercarriersoperateorwilloperateasasingletransportationsystem.
TheBoardcitedthefollowingasindiciaofasingletransportationsystem:[T]heBoardlooksintosuchpracticalconsiderationsaswhetheracombinedscheduleispublished;howthecarrieradvertisesitsservices;whetherreservationsystemsarecombined;whetherticketsareissuedononecarrier'sstock;ifsigns,logosandotherpubliclyvisibleindiciahavebeenchangedtoindicateonlyonecarrier'sexistence;whetherpersonnelwithpubliccontactwereheldoutasemployeesofonecarrier;andwhethertheprocessofrepaintingplanesandotherequipment,toeliminateindicationsofseparateexistence,hasbeenprogressed.
OtherfactorsinvestigatedbytheBoardseektodetermineifthecarriershavecombinedtheiroperationsfromamanagerialandlaborrelationsperspective.
HeretheBoardinvestigateswhetherlaborrelationsandpersonnelfunctionsarehandledbyonecarrier;whetherthereareacommonmanagement,commoncorporateofficersandinterlockingBoardsofDirectors;whetherthereisacombinedworkforce;andwhetherseparateidentitiesaremaintainedforcorporateandotherpurposes.
Id.
at236.
TheBoardfurtherstated:One[factor]iswhetherthe.
.
.
systemsareheldouttothepublicasasinglecarrier.
Werecognizethattheremaybedifferencesbetween.
.
.
carriers'intenttoholdthemselvesouttothepublicasasinglecarrierandthepublic'sperceptionofwhetherthereisasinglesystem.
ThatiswhytheBoardlooksintopracticalconsiderations.
.
.
.
Id.
GrupoTACAisanallianceofCentralAmericancarrierswithcombinedmarketing.
Therearepubliclyvisibleindicia,suchasaircraftandsignsatstations,whichshowGrupoTACAandthenamesoftheindividualcarriersthatcomprisetheGrupoTACAalliance.
WhilethereissomeevidencethatmanagementiscombinedatcertainU.
S.
locations,thereisnoevidenceofcentralizedlaborrelations.
Tothecontrary,thereisevidencethatLACSAhandlesitsownlaborrelations.
Thereisinsufficientevidenceofinterlockingboardsofdirectorsorcorporateofficers.
Thereisnoevidencethatthecarriersareoperatingunderasingleoperatingcertificate.
Thereisnoevidenceofacombinedworkforce.
AccordingtoLACSA,therearenoplansforamerger.
Basedontheevidenceprovided,theBoardfindsinsufficientevidencethatLACSAandTACAareasingletransportationsystemorwillbeasingletransportationsystembyadatecertain.
ConclusionTheBoardfindsthatLACSA,TACA,AVIATECAandNICAarenotoperatingasasingletransportationsystemforrepresentationpurposesundertheRailwayLaborAct.
Accordingly,theIBT'sapplicationinNMBFileNo.
CR-6710isconvertedtoNMBCaseNo.
R-6819anddismissed.
BydirectionoftheNationalMediationBoard.
StephenE.
CrableChiefofStaff1.
TheOrganizationalsolistsTACAHonduras,whichispartofTACA,initsapplication.
2.
TheparticipantsalsofiledpositionstatementsrelatingtoapendingBoardmediationcase,NMBCaseNo.
A-13069.
Thosestatementswerenotconsideredinthisdetermination.
3.
TheInternationalAssociationofMachinistsandAerospaceWorkers,AFL-CIO(IAM),isthecertifiedrepresentativeforTACA'sClericalOffice,FleetandPassengerServicecraftorclass,NMBCaseNo.
R-4290.
ByagreementbetweenTACAandtheIAM,TACAsubcontractedthework.
TheIAM'scertificationremainsineffect.