Document: 457 U.S. 176 102 S.Ct. 2374 72 L.Ed.2d 765 SUMITOMO SHOJI AMERICA, INC., Petitionerv.Lisa M. AVAGLIANO et al. Lisa AVAGLIANO, al., Petitioners v. INC. Nos. 80-2070, 81-24. Argued April 26, 1982. Decided June 15, Syllabus Petitioner Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc., is a New York corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Japanese general trading company. Past present female secretarial employees Sumitomo, who, with one exception, are United States citizens, brought class action in Federal District Court against claiming that its alleged practice hiring only male citizens to fill executive, managerial, sales positions violated Title VII the Civil Rights Act 1964. moved dismiss complaint on ground practices were protected under Art. VIII(1) Friendship, Commerce Navigation Treaty between Japan. Article provides "companies either Party shall be permitted engage, within territories other Party, accountants technical experts, executive personnel, attorneys, agents specialists their choice." XXII(3) defines "companies" as "[c]ompanies constituted applicable laws regulations Party." The refused dismiss, holding because was incorporated States, it not covered by VIII(1), but court then certified for interlocutory appeal Appeals question whether terms exempted from VII's provisions. reversed part, intended cover locally subsidiaries foreign companies language did insulate Sumitomo's employment scrutiny. Held: company Japan thus Treaty. Pp. 180-189. (a) Under XXII(3)'s literal language, since "constituted regulations" York. As cannot invoke rights provided which available operating Where both parties agree this meaning such interpretation follows clear deference will given it, absent extraordinarily strong contrary evidence. 180-185. (b) Adherence does overlook Treaty's purpose, primary purpose provisions give corporations each signatory legal status territory party allow them conduct business country comparable basis domestic firms. 185-189. 2d Cir., 638 F.2d 552, vacated remanded. Abram Chayes, Washington, D. C., Inc. Lewis Steel, City, Avagliano, Lawrence G. Wallace, amicus curiae special leave Court. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion 1 We granted certiorari decide defense discrimination suit an American 2 * Petitioner, Kabushiki Kaisha, or sogo shosha.1 Respondents past Sumitomo.2 All respondents citizens; exception citizen living States. 42 U.S.C. § 1981 1964, 78 Stat. 253, amended, 2000e seq. (1976 ed. Supp.IV).3 sought injunctive relief damages. 3 Without admitting discriminatory practice, Rule 12(b)(6) Rules Procedure complaint. motion based two grounds: (1) citizenship violate 1981; (2) Japan, Apr. 2, 1953, [1953] 4 U.S.T. 2063, T.I.A.S. No. 2863. dismissed claim, neither sex nor national origin cognizable section. 473 F.Supp. 506 (S.D.N.Y.1979). claims, however; held 28 1292(b) VII. part. 552 (C.A.2 1981). first examined history concluded Sumitomo. certain conditions, could bona fide occupational qualification high-level Japanese-owned might fit statutory VII.4 remanded further proceedings.5 5 certiorari, 454 962, 501, 70 377 (1981), we vacate remand. II 6 Interpretation must, course, begin itself. import treaty controls unless "application words according obvious effects result inconsistent intent expectations signatories." Maximov 373 49, 54, 83 1054, 1057, 10 184 (1963). See also Amiable Isabella, Wheat. (10 U.S.) 1, 72, L.Ed. 191 (1821). 7 pertinent part: 8 "[C]ompanies (Emphasis added.)6 9 Clearly applies countries country. contends grants very broad discretion exclusively citizens.7 define any terms; definitional section contained XXII. provides: 11 "As used Treaty, term 'companies' means corporations, partnerships, associations, limited liability pecuniary profit. Companies deemed thereof have juridical recognized added.) 12 York; XXII(3), Japan.8 13 Governments support Both Ministry Foreign Affairs Department State corporation, even when company, therefore VIII(1). stated position Embassy Tokyo reference case: 14 "The Affairs, Office [the Government Japan] responsible [Friendship, Navigation] reiterates view concerning application 8, Paragraph Treaty: For . and, therefore, operates States."9 15 maintains do apply subsidiaries.10 Although conclusive, attributed agencies charged negotiation enforcement entitled great weight. Kolovrat Oregon, 366 187, 194, 81 922, 926, 218 (1961).11 16 Our role giving effect parties. When provision, evidence, defer interpretation.12 III 17 although supports interpretation, regardless place incorporation. disagree. 18 Contrary claims adherence would "overlook Treaty." F.2d, at 556. series similar commercial agreements negotiated after World War II.13 Treaties party, treaties early 1778, thereafter throughout 19th century 20th century,14 these primarily concerned trade shipping individuals. Until century, international commerce much more individual than corporate affair.15 19 involvement expanded old became outmoded. Because "corporation[s] can no existence out boundaries sovereignty [they are] created," Bank Augusta Earle, Pet. (38 519, 588, 274 (1839), necessary negotiate new granting right function abroad. A before gave access courts,16 until postwar gained countries.17 greater companies, instead assure equal without suffering alienage. 20 accomplished "national treatment"18 most respects allowing individuals form subsidiaries. These local considered purposes they incorporated; rights, subject responsibilities corporations. By treating provisions—to alien entity—is fully met. 21 Nor create "crazy-quilt pattern" branches directly greatly superior companies. maintained if they, unlike branch offices denied system, left unprotected unlawful entry molestation, unable dispose property, obtain patents, engage importation exportation, make payments, remittances, transfers funds. Ibid. That case obvious; subsidiaries, enjoy all those more. significant advantage may over conferred IV 22 persuaded, signatories agree, States; discern reason depart plain language. Accordingly, hold Treaty.19 judgment vacated, proceedings consistent opinion. 23 Vacated General been unique fixture economy Meiji era. market large numbers products, typically smaller concerns, raw materials manufactured products In addition, play part financing Japan's trade. largest companies—including parent company—in typical year account 50% exports 60% imports Krause & Sekiguchi, Economy, Asia's Giant: How Economy Works 383, 389-397 (H. Patrick H. Rosovsky eds. 1976). filed cross-petition case. Thus, secretaries, generally referred respondents, 80-2070 cross-petitioners petitioner cross-respondent Prior bringing suit, timely complaints Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. EEOC issued "right sue" letters October 27, 1977. This November 21, 1977, well 90-day period allowed filing suits receipt notice sue. 2000e-5(f)(1). argued citizenship, opposed origin, prohibited disagreed, however. It relied Espinoza Farah Manufacturing Co., 414 86, 92, 94 334, 338, 38 287 (1973), noted "Title prohibits whenever has discriminating origin." discussed length briefs, issue properly reach it. included review 1292(b), decided Appeals, set forth fairly questions presented required 21.1(a). nearly identical case, divided panel Fifth Circuit came somewhat results. Spiess C. Itoh 643 353 cert. pending, 81-1496. majority agreed Second decision disagreed latter court's provision protect subsidiary's liability. dissent, Judge Reavley majority's initial conclusion. He Similar countries. See, e.g., XII(4) Greece, [1954] 1829, 1857, 3057 (1951); Israel, 550, 557, 551 Republic Germany, [1956] 1839, 1848, 3593 (1954). apparently insistence fact, countries, including unsuccessfully fought deletion. Airgram A-453, dated Jan. 7, 1952, pp. 3, reprinted App. 130a, 131a, 133a (discussing objections VIII(1)); Service Despatch 2529, Mar. 18, 1954, 181a, 182a German VIII(1)). According Herman Walker, Jr., who time drafting served Adviser Commercial Department, avoid strict percentile limitations Americans abroad "to prevent imposition ultranationalistic policies respect essential personnel." Provisions Treaties, 50 Am.J.Int'l L. 373, 386 (1956); Encouragement Protection Investment: Present Practice, Am.J.Comp.L. 229, 234 (1956). Mr. Walker formulation several A-105, 9, 1976, 157a. supra, (Purpose Germany "is preclude 'percentile' legislation. gives freedom choice among persons lawfully occupationally qualified law"). issues raised contention clearly widespread importance. n. 6, invoked many some contain XII(4), U.S.T., 1857-1859 ("Nationals choice. .") (emphasis added). 1979, affiliates employed 1.6 million workers Howenstine, Selected Data Operations U. S. Affiliates Companies, 1978 Survey Current Business 35, 36 (U.S. Dept. Commerce, May VII(1) example, XVI(2) accords treatment "[a]rticles produced nationals controlled ." obviously envisions party. If nationality determined controlling entity proposes, rather incorporation, sense. Several little sense Articles VII(1), VII(4), clauses dealing enterprises themselves parents, separate unwarranted. Cable, 03300, Feb. 1982 (cable Secretary relaying Japan). Diplomatic Communication Washington State, ("The reconfirms itself article 8., paragraph (the FCN Treaty) States"). Brief Amicus Curiae 8-22; Letter James R. Atwood, Deputy Legal Adviser, Lutz Alexander Prager, Assistant Counsel, Commission, Sept. 11, 307a. ("On reflection scope sentence VIII S.-Japan FCN, established our satisfaction negotiators locally-incorporated avail treaty"). Atwood letter incorrect, point written previous taking view. Lee Marks, Abner W. Sibal, Oct. 17, 1978, 94a. However indicative state mind negotiators; merely evidence later agency interpreting enforcing ambiguous previously, certainly beyond dispute now interprets conformity (1961). Determining incorporation prior practice. L., 382-383. place-of-incorporation rule making determination simple matter. On hand, control test dispute. express view, which, similarly worded, different negotiating histories. China, 63 1299, 1871 (1946); Italy, 2255, 1965 (1948); 2863 (1953); (1954); Netherlands, [1957] 2043, 3942 Pakistan, [1961] 110, 4683 (1959). compared tabular Treaties: Hearing Ethiopia, Denmark, Finland, Subcommittee Senate Committee Relations, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., 7-17 (1953). Amity France, 12, T.S. (1778); Amity, Great Britain, 116, 105 (1794); Friendship Sweden Norway, 232, 347 (1816); 524, 251 (1839); Belgium, 606, (1845); 845, 177 (1871); Spain, 750, 337 (1884); 31 1935, 101 (1900); 33 2208, 430 (1903). supra 374-378. Consular 37 1504, 558 (1911); 44 2132, 725 (1923); Estonia, 2379, 736 (1925); Hungary, 2441, 748 El Salvador, 46 2817, 827 (1926); Honduras, 45 2618, 764 (1927); Latvia, 2641, (1928); Austria, 47 1876, 838 2135, 852 Poland, 48 1507, 862 (1931); 49 2659, 868 (1934); Siam, 53 1731, 940 (1937); Liberia, 54 1739, 956 (1938). quite limited. 1911 provided: "Limited associations already hereafter organized accordance High Contracting domiciled authorized, other, exercise appear courts plaintiffs defendants, Party. foregoing stipulation bearing upon association transact industry permission remaining always enacted respective thereof." 1506. Treaties. significance advance emphasized hearings "Perhaps striking cognizance taken use organization present-day economic affairs. antedating specifically assured small protection possible treaties, however, accorded essentially same vital matters business, taxation nondiscriminatory basis, acquisition enjoyment real personal exchange controls. Furthermore, substantial connection forming managing affairs companies." Between Colombia, Denmark Greece 82d 4-5 (1952) (opening statement Harold Linder, Economic Affairs). "National treatment" defined XXII(1) 'national treatment' less favorable therein, like situations, nationals, vessels objects, be, short, ordinarily highest level afforded treaties. areas unwilling grant full treatment; frequently "most-favored-nation treatment," third XXII(2) most-favored-nation now, imply disability favor. situations nowadays, first-class tends enjoy." Modern Navigation, Minn.L.Rev. 805, 811 (1958). necessity available. There doubt doing call familiarity culture, customs, However, found evidentiary record insufficient determine discuss relation respondents' claim possibility defense. Whether assertion us. 4, supra. assert parent.

Category: 1