Friday, March 24, 2006

Geographic Limits of Title VII for Some

As American business goes international, into a territory where laws are undefined and far from universal, sticky situations are bound to occur. If your company sends you overseas, are you still protected by Title VII, and other similar laws? According to an article in the Rhode Island Employment Law Letter, "Limiting Title VII: when a title really makes a difference"
The answer is yes, if you're a U.S. citizen, but no if you are anything but.

The article discusses the instance of Valadimir Shekoyan, an Armenian who was designated a "lawful permanent resident" of the U.S. While working in Georgia (the country, not the state), he was terminated--in his eyes, because of his national origin. He wasn't given the chance to prove this, however, as the provision stating that Title VII applies to citizens overseas (while it didn't originally) wasn't seen as covering anyone who is anything less.

Considering a) the number of non-native employees working for American companies, and b) the increasing globalizations of said companies, this could have enormous implications. While on the one hand, it might be overkill to require companies to apply Title VII to all non-US employees (in the example, of, say, a factory in China entirely staffed by local Chinese), it does seem reasonable to me to extend such protections to someone like Shekoyan who had taken up residence in the United States, and could have just as reasonably been employed in a U.S. location.

What are your thoughts? Should U.S. laws be extended to cover more than purely citizens, or are the economic disadvantages for the company greater than the benefits? Also, what do you think of the tone of the article, particularly the advice of looking for exceptions?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home