Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractdefendantdiscriminationcorporationcivil rightstreatycitizenship
contractdefendantdiscriminationcorporationcivil rightstreatycitizenship

Related Cases

Glus v. G.C. Murphy Co.
View Case »
Lefsih v. Wolf
View Case »
Perkovic v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Samma v. Department of Def.
View Case »
United States v. Guzman-Bera
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Bennett v. Total Minatome Corp.

Facts

W.G. Bennett brought this employment discrimination suit against his employer, Total Minatome Corporation ("TMC"). Bennett alleged that TMC unlawfully discriminated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. 1981. TMC, an oil and gas company incorporated in Delaware, is the wholly owned subsidiary of TOTAL, S.A. ("TOTAL"), a French corporation headquartered in Paris, France. Bennett, an American citizen born in Mississippi, was hired as a manager by TMC on April 1, 1987, less than one month before his 51st birthday. Over the next four years, Bennett was promoted twice, at age 52 and at age 54. In July 1991, TOTAL replaced TMC's then-president with another French expatriate, who decided to replace Bennett with a younger French expatriate. Bennett was transferred to a position with significantly less responsibility and later filed suit alleging discrimination based on age, national origin, and race.

W.G. Bennett brought this employment discrimination suit against his employer, Total Minatome Corporation ("TMC"). Bennett alleged that TMC unlawfully discriminated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. 1981. TMC, an oil and gas company incorporated in Delaware, is the wholly owned subsidiary of TOTAL, S.A. ("TOTAL"), a French corporation headquartered in Paris, France. Bennett, an American citizen born in Mississippi, was hired as a manager by TMC on April 1, 1987, less than one month before his 51st birthday. Over the next four years, Bennett was promoted twice, at age 52 and at age 54. In July 1991, TOTAL replaced TMC's then-president with another French expatriate, who decided to replace Bennett with a younger French expatriate. Bennett was transferred to a position with significantly less responsibility and later filed suit alleging discrimination based on age, national origin, and race.

Issue

Whether TMC, the wholly owned U.S. subsidiary of a French company, may assert rights under the Convention of Establishment to discriminate in favor of French citizens.

Whether TMC, the wholly owned U.S. subsidiary of a French company, may assert rights under the Convention of Establishment to discriminate in favor of French citizens.

Rule

Article VI of the Convention of Establishment grants nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party the right to engage personnel essential to the functioning of the enterprise, allowing for discrimination in favor of citizens of their home countries.

Article VI of the Convention of Establishment grants nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party the right to engage personnel essential to the functioning of the enterprise, allowing for discrimination in favor of citizens of their home countries.

Analysis

The court concluded that TMC could assert TOTAL's rights under the Convention because TOTAL dictated the decision to replace Bennett. The court noted that there was no evidence that Bennett was discriminated against on any basis other than his citizenship, and thus, the exercise of the treaty right by TOTAL did not constitute a violation of Title VII or the ADEA.

The court concluded that TMC could assert TOTAL's rights under the Convention because TOTAL dictated the decision to replace Bennett. The court noted that there was no evidence that Bennett was discriminated against on any basis other than his citizenship, and thus, the exercise of the treaty right by TOTAL did not constitute a violation of Title VII or the ADEA.

Conclusion

The court reversed the judgment of the district court, finding that the Convention of Establishment allowed defendant to discriminate based on citizenship, and found no evidence of other discrimination.

The court reversed the judgment of the district court, finding that the Convention of Establishment allowed defendant to discriminate based on citizenship, and found no evidence of other discrimination.

Who won?

Total Minatome Corporation prevailed in the case because the court found that the discrimination alleged by Bennett was based solely on his citizenship, which was permitted under the Convention of Establishment.

Total Minatome Corporation prevailed in the case because the court found that the discrimination alleged by Bennett was based solely on his citizenship, which was permitted under the Convention of Establishment.

You must be