Follow up highlights of the case.
SIA tried to go for partial summery judgement to their favor on September 18, 1997. The following are the plaintiff's brief in support of it's motion for partial summary judgment.
Plaintiff Singapore Airlines, INC. ("SIA"), in support of its motion for partial Summary Judgment, states as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
SIA is the "flag" commercial air carrier of the Republic of Singapore, with its headquarters and center of operations in Singapore. Defendant xxx is a pilot and former Singapore-based employee of SIA. SIA brought this action against xxx to recover a portion of the costs of training xxx to fly commercial aircraft. xxx admits that he executed a "Bonding Agreement," in which he promised to reimburse SIA for these costs if he separated from the company before completing seven years service. He also admits that he resigned during his second year, and that neither he nor the sureties to his bonding Agreement have made or attempted repayment.
Instead, xxx now argues, by way of defense and counterclaim, that SIA and its agents discriminated against him on the basis of his race and national origin, as a result of which he was constructively discharged. he has also accused SIA of withholding $500 in back wages in violation of xxx state law.
During his deposition, xxx admitted that he resigned from SIA because of marital difficulties, and not because of any discrimination or ill treatment by his employer. Thus, xxx's constructive discharge counterclaim and defense is unsupported and must fail. xxx also admitted that his entire employment relationship with SIA, including his employment interview, each of the discriminatory acts he alleges, and his eventual resignation, occured in or near Singapore and not in, or even near, the United States.
For reader info: Singapore has not signed any human rights international charters.
xxx has expressly denied that Singapore law applies, and, therefore, brought his discrimination counterclaim under either State of xxx or Federal law, in either case, his discrimination counterclaims fail to state a cause of action: neither State of xxx nor U.S. discrimination laws apply to acts by a foreign corporation against a U.S. citizen employed overseas.
Accordingly, SIA has brought this motion for partial summary judgment, asking that the Court dismiss xxx discrimination counterclaims and defenses, and, for similar reasons, to dismiss his state wage-withholding claim as well.
II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
Mr. xxx's deposition in this matter was taken on June 24, 1997. As this is a motion for partial summary judgment, SIA is depending for its facts on xxx's own claims, without comment as to their truthfulness or accuracy. therefore, the facts as given below are taken almost exclusively from xxx's own testimony.
SIA, a commercial aieline organized under the laws of singapore, recruits pilots from around the world to operate its fleet. Many of these pilots have no prior experience flying commercial aircraft and must be trained and qualified on such aircraft before they can take up the positions for which they were hired. Because it is extremely expensive to train an individual to pilot a commercial aircraft such as a Boeing 747 or an Airbus A310, and because these skills, once acquired, qualify a pilot for positions with SIA's competitors (who often refuse to employ untrained pilots), SIA requires, as a condition of training and continued employment, that each pilot trainee sign a "Bonding Agreement." See bonding agreement, exhibit A to complaint. In the agreement, a pilot promises to repay a portion of his training costs if he separates from SIA before completing seven years service. The amount that must be repaid is inversely proportional to the number of years a pilot remains with SIA, so that a pilot leaving after five years must repay a much smaller amount than a pilot who leaves in his first year.
According to his deposition testimony, xxx became interested in employment with SIA during the late 1980s while he was working as a ground instructor for Boeing Aircraft, Inc. xxx deposition says, 'after receiving his Airline Transport Pilot's certificate in may of 1993, xxx approached SIA regarding becoming a pilot for the airline. He was still working for Boeing at the time. SIA responded positively, and, in June or july of 1993, xxx flew to Singapore for a 3 day series of interviews.' xxx's deposition further states, 'in Oct 1993, xxx received a written offer of employment from SIA headquarters in Singapore. The letter included a copy of the bonding agreement and set forth the terms and conditions of his employment. xxx signed the letter, indicating his acceptance of its terms, and returned a copy to SIA.
xxx and his wife moved to Singapore in Nov 1993, and xxx continued to reside in Singapore during the entire course of his employment with SIA. Learjet training, the first stage of training designed to permit xxx to capably pilot one of SIA's commercial aircraft, began in Jan, 1994. Before beginning learjet training, xxx and two sureties of his choice executed the Bonding Agreement. It stated in pertinent part:
It is further agreed and declared that if THE TRAINEE in the sole opinion of SIA:-...
(f) resigns or leaves the service of SIA or its SUBSIDIARY (as the case may be) either during the course of training or during the period of seven (7) years referred to in Clause 4 of this Deed;...
then and in every such case THE TRAINEE and THE SURETIES shall be jointly and severally liable for themselves, their heirs, executors or assigns to pay SIA on demand as liquidated damages the amount set out in schedule A of this Deed.
xxx completed training, began piloting airplanes for SIA, and was promoted to second Officer in June, 1994. He was promoted to First Officer in Nov 1994.
In Sep, 1995. xxx's wife, unhappy with her life in Singapore, returned to the United States. According to his deposition testimony, xxx attempted to "work out" options that would allow him to continue working for SIA while having incresed opportunities to be with his wife. His ideas included communicating from (his home town), taking unpaid leave to visit the United States, or taking a leave of absence to work out his marital difficulties. None of these, according to xxx, were acceptable to SIA, and so, in Jan, 1996, xxx resigned his position. xxx testified that, if his wife had stayed in Singapore, he would not have resigned from SIA. He confirmed that he did not leave SIA because of discrimination or other intolerable treatment. Specifically, xxx stated:
Q: Did she indicate when she left in Sep of 95 that she would not come back to Singapore?
A: Yes. And I shared that with LM also before she left.
Q: Pardon?
A: I shared that with LM before before she left, in the meeting then when I saw him Nov and tried to see him in Dec.
Q: If your wife had been able to stay in Singapore, would you have stayed with Singapore Airlines?
A: Yes, in so much as there were no additional instances of racism or discrimination of any kind, bypassed for promotion or anything else related to it.
Q: But in Jan of 1996, as things existed at that time, had your wife been with you, you would have stayed in Singapore?
Comments from Gladiator: The above question and the answer below is were the defendant screwed himself.
A: Yes.
xxx went on to explain the steps he took to remain in Singapore Airlines. Following this summary, he confirmed his testimony that he was not leaving SIA because of discrimination, and, in fact, had hoped - until virtually the last moment - to be able to stay with the company:
Q: You were still at this point hoping there would be some way of working out an arrangement where you could remain at Singapore Airlines, were you not?
A: That was whole intention for the meeting in Dec that he [an SIA manager] had asked me to arrange, yes.
Later in his deposition, xxx again reiterated his continued interest in working for SIA at the time he submitted his resignation.
"I also felt that the Airline was well aware that it could save a great deal of money allowing foreign pilots to live in their country of origin versus in Singapore and also increase their chances of retention. the Airline knew this. It was up to them to act upon it. This referral to the B777, they were well aware of my ability and expertise in these matters, and if they wanted to do this, I was available and they could use me. (Emphasis added.)
Letters from xxx to SIA management confirm this interest.
In the end, however, xxx's various ideas proved impractical or valueless to SIA and, effective Jan 31, 1996, xxx resigned his position. After xxx refused to pay the liquidated damages as set forth in the Bonding Agreement, and thus reimburse SIA for some portion of his training costs, SIA filed this lawsuit. SIA alleged that Singapore law applied to SIA's claims.
In answer, xxx asserted that he had been constructively discharged as a result of discrimination on the basis of his race and national origin:
17. Plaintiff's [SIA] continuing performance of his employment contracts should be excused because ... the racial discrimination he experienced at the hands of Singaporeans created a hostile working environment constructively discharging him and justifying his refusal to continue in intolerable working and living conditions. (Emphasis added.)
18. Defendant was constructively discharged because of intolerable racial discrimination against him, together with intolerable working and living conditions. (Emphasis added.)
xxx also brought a counterclaim based on these same allegations:
ASA A COUNTERCLAIM, defendant alleges as follows:
21. Defendant was discriminated against by agents and employees of plaintiff on the basis of his race and national and national origin, and as a result of discrimination, together with intolerable working and living conditions, was constructively discharged.
xxx also alleges that SIA owes him unpaid compensation, entitling to double damages and attoeney fees, pursuant to xxx State law, RCW 49.48 and RCW 49.52.
xxx's answer does not plead that any foreign law alpplies to his defenses or counterclaims. In fact, xxx has flatly denied that Singapore law applies to SIA's claims. xxx's answer states:
5. Answering paragraph 4.1 of the complaint [asserting that Singapore law applies], defendant admits the para 14 of the training [Bonding] Agreement provides that it is governed by the laws of Singapore.
In addition to failing to admit that Singapore Law applies to this section, the Answer states that allegations not admitted are deemed denied:
8. Except as expressly admitted above, in all other respects, defendant denies the allegations in plaintiff's complaint ....
Thus xxx's only reference to Singapore law is to deny that it applies. xxx is a United States citizen and is Caucasian in appearance. When asked during his deposition to describe all of the elements of his discrimination claim, xxx testified that this claim is grounded in the following incidents and events:
Rest to follow: