Re-Examing the Role of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding Title VII's Foreign Laws Defense

By Miller, Sandra | The George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics, January 1, 1997 | Go to article overview

Re-Examing the Role of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding Title VII's Foreign Laws Defense


Miller, Sandra, The George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics


I. INTRODUCTION

The proliferation of multinational corporations and cross-border joint ventures has lead to an increase in the number of U.S. citizens employed abroad.l In 1994 the Bureau of Economic Analysis, a division of the United States Department of Commerce, estimated that approximately 21,500 U.S. citizens were employed by 18,929 foreign affiliates of 2,529 U.S. parent companies.2 This increase in transnational employment has raised concerns among U.S. employers operating overseas regarding the extraterritorial reach of U.S. laws.3 United States employers operating overseas often face the challenge of determining which U.S. laws apply to them and which statutes exempt them from compliance? Unfortunately, however, the law is often ambiguous and no definitive answers guiding employers exist.

Congress, recognizing the need to be cautious in applying U.S. laws abroad to prevent foreign relations problems and retaliatory legislation by foreign sovereigns,5 is often unclear when it includes extraterritorial provisions in statutes. For example, in 1991 Congress amended Title VII of the United States Code (Title VII), which prevents discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, sex, religion or national origin,6 to provide for the extraterritorial application of the anti-discrimination provisions.7 Congress exempted employers operating abroad from complying with Title VII if doing so would cause the employer to violate the laws of the foreign country.8 Congress, however, did not determine what constitutes a law of a foreign country or whether the foreign laws exemption includes customs, cultural norms, and religious beliefs.

This Note examines the inadequacy of the foreign laws defense under Title VII and offers an appropriate clarification and implementation. Part II of this Note discusses the history of Title VII and the 1991 amendment that created Title VII's extraterritorial provision. Part III discusses the foreign laws defense the 1991 amendment established and provides examples of various non-legal considerations-such as customs, cultural norms, and religious beliefs-that may have the force of law in some countries. Part IV of this Note argues that the parameters of the foreign laws defense should be broadened. Specifically, Part IV addresses problems that may arise due to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC)9 strict interpretation of "law" when a U.S. employer is operating in Japan or Saudi Arabia. Finally, Part V proposes a two step solution that confers upon the EEOC sole authority to determine whether non-legal influences shield an employer from Title VII liability.

II. HISTORY OF TITLE VII AND THE 1991 AMENDMENT A. The Development of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal for an employer to refuse to hire, discharge, classify, or otherwise discriminate against an employee on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin.Io Congress passed this Act codified in Title VII "to advance the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, to remedy past discrimination . . . and to discourage future like discrimination."" Title VII included the recognition that, in certain situations, religion, national origin, or gender may be a "bona fide occupational qualification" (BFOQ).12

Although Congress intended Title VII to provide a broad range of protections, the original legislation did not include specific language concerning how employers should treat U.S. employees working abroad.13 Due to Congress's silence, the EEOC filled the policy gap and in 1988 began advocating the extraterritorial application of Title VII.14 The EEOC claimed that the legislative history of Title VII indicated that Congress intended Title VII protection to extend abroad.l5 The EEOC's position prevailed until it was judicially tested in 1991.16

B. The EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co. Case

In EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Re-Examing the Role of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding Title VII's Foreign Laws Defense
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.