Singapore Airlines vs. ****** (USA) Part 2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi Bob, as far as my inside information goes, the connection between the Flight Ops manager and the defendant was true. The former was instrumental in getting Mr.xxx into SQ. His deposition said it all.
I agree with Methusalah that a street smart person like Mr.xxx would have had a good grasp of the the actual conditions before venturing forth. He took the chance but it didn't turn out well for him.
Methu, if you had read the conclusion of the deposition, MdeV won the bet that "This Guy" would not stay. Interesting that the big man himself could foresee the intention of someone. They knew him too well.
I agree with Methusalah that a street smart person like Mr.xxx would have had a good grasp of the the actual conditions before venturing forth. He took the chance but it didn't turn out well for him.
Methu, if you had read the conclusion of the deposition, MdeV won the bet that "This Guy" would not stay. Interesting that the big man himself could foresee the intention of someone. They knew him too well.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gladiator, you are such a tease!!
I am very disappointed in you
This posting is like sex, first you work me up, my anticipation and arousal grows(amongst other things) and right at the moment of climax when I am looking for a satisfactory conclusion to this very very long build up
NOTHING !
You really have let me down you know.
Dont do this again unless you are going all the way. you bad girl
[This message has been edited by faheel (edited 16 September 1999).]
I am very disappointed in you
This posting is like sex, first you work me up, my anticipation and arousal grows(amongst other things) and right at the moment of climax when I am looking for a satisfactory conclusion to this very very long build up
NOTHING !
You really have let me down you know.
Dont do this again unless you are going all the way. you bad girl
[This message has been edited by faheel (edited 16 September 1999).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ya'll hold your horses and be patient. it will fall together.
After a few e-mails I find out that pprune is truly like sex for Faheel as he is stuck in the desert and not the very good side of it either. Please be patient Faheel (dip your hand in cold water.)
After a few e-mails I find out that pprune is truly like sex for Faheel as he is stuck in the desert and not the very good side of it either. Please be patient Faheel (dip your hand in cold water.)
Guest
Posts: n/a
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:
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:
Guest
Posts: n/a
1. Loss of License insurance exclusions. xxx claims that his loss of [pilot] license insurance, which he received in Nov, 1994, contained exclusions allegedly due to his weight, and that, to his knowledge, no Singaporean pilot, regardless of weight, had such an exclusion. xxx never made a claim on this insurance.
2. Learjet check ride admonishment. xxx claims that, in feb od 1994, he was admonished for improper procedures during a learjet check ride by a captain GE. According to his testimony, xxx explained without being argumentative, that he had been following proper US procedures, which differs from SIA procedures. Two days later, he was again admonished regarding the incident for being defensive, evasive to the captain, and disrespectful.
3. Flight with MH. xxx claims that, in Dec, 1994, during a flight from Bangkok to Singapore, he was critisized by the captain, MH, for not having properly planned his approach and descent.
4. Refresher simulator check ride. Following leave in June to july 1995, xxx was scheduled for refresher simulator training (required when pilots have gone more than 30 days without flying). He was first admonished, incorrectly according to his testimony, for preparing an out-of-date simulator scenario. Then, following a simulated landing that was difficult to control, he was admonished in front of a fellow pilot who was a Singaporean. xxx suspects that the landing was deliberately made difficult in order to belittle him.
5. MY. xxx testified that MY, am SIA pilot, refused to let xxx fly after he learned that xxx had not contributed to a "completion-of-[Airbus]-310-school" party. He repeatedly admonished xxx "anytime there was someone in the flight deck." In addition, MY sent a note to another SIA captain that referred to xxx as "the big fat guy."
6. Handing out of certificates. xxx testified that, following a training session in Thailand, certificates were handed out in order of Singaporean, malaysian, Eurasian, Caucasian, within the ranks of captain and first officer. xxx, as a Caucasian, got his last.
7. Assignment to Aircraft Training. xxx testified that he believed that he was not selected for the prestigious and higher-paid 747-400 training in the spring of 1994 and because he was caucasian and "American." Instead, he was trained to fly an Airbus 310.
These are all of the incidents alleged by xxx to form the basis of his discrimination counterclaims and defenses. Not one of these incidents occured in, or even near, the United States. Most of them occured in Singapore; all of them occured within the context of xxx's employment with SIA, a Singaporean entity. Moreover, xxx's reason for leaving SIA was not associated with any of these incidents.
III. DISCUSSION
Defendant's defenses and counterclaims regarding discrimination and wage withholding should be dismissed because (1) xxx has denied that Singapore law applies, and the acts and events complained of by xxx, even when viwed in the light most favorable to him, fail to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted under either State of xxx or U.S. law; and (2) in any event, xxx admits that he was not constructively discharged.
A. Summary Judgement Standards.
Summery judgement is appropriate if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogations, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P.56(c). A party may not simply rest on its pleadings; if a party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of any essential element to its case, or to refute any otherwise established affirmative defense of the moving party, the moving party is entitled to summery judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.317,322-23,91L.Ed.2d265,106S.Ct2548(1986). When the record taken as a whole could not lead a retional trier of facts to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial. Matsu****a Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S.574,587,89L.Ed.2d538,106S.Ct.1348(1986). In addition, partial summery judgment is appropriate when the movant can show that no genuine issue of material fact exists with regard to particular claims or parts of claims. See Fed.R.CivP.56(b); Wang Laboratories,Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electronics Am., Inc., 860F.Supp.1448.1450-51(C.D.Cal.1993).
B. xxx's discrimination claims and defenses should be dismissed because the acts and events that compromise his discrimination defenses and counterclaims fail to state a cause of action under either the State of xxx or federal Law and xxx has asserted that Singapore law does not apply.
The parties claims, counterclaims and defenses have been brought in a U.S. court based upon events that occured in or near singapore. See complaint; answer; and statement of facts, above. therefore, one or more of three seperate sets of laws would ordinarily apply: the law of Singapore, as pled by SIA, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.44.1, the law of the United States, or the laws of the State of xxx (the situs of this court). See generally Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and procedures, 2112. In this case, however, xxx's discrimination defenses and counterclaims may not be addressed under Singapore law: not only has xxx failed to plead application of foreign law as he must do under Fed.R.Civ.P.44.1, but he has affirmatively denied that Singapore law applies to this action.
Thus, to state causes of action, xxx's claims must be cognizable under either the State of xxx law or U.S. law. As set forth below, summery judgment on this issue is appropriate because neither Title VII of the U.S. Code nor the State of xxx law against discrimination recognizes a cause for the incidents and acts described in xxx's complaint.
The reason for this is simple: as set forth in the statement of facts, above, each of the incidents of discrimination alleged by xxx occured in or near Singapore while xxx was an employee of SIA, a foreign corporation; not a single incident occured in or near the United sates. In fact, for the entire period of employment with SIA, xxx was stationed in Singapore, and not in the United States. Finally, SIA is not in any sense a "State of xxx" employer.
It is well settled that Title VII of the U.S. Code, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race and national origin (the basis of xxx allegations), is inapplicable to either U.S. or foreign corporations employing U.S. citizens abroad.
Rest to follow.
2. Learjet check ride admonishment. xxx claims that, in feb od 1994, he was admonished for improper procedures during a learjet check ride by a captain GE. According to his testimony, xxx explained without being argumentative, that he had been following proper US procedures, which differs from SIA procedures. Two days later, he was again admonished regarding the incident for being defensive, evasive to the captain, and disrespectful.
3. Flight with MH. xxx claims that, in Dec, 1994, during a flight from Bangkok to Singapore, he was critisized by the captain, MH, for not having properly planned his approach and descent.
4. Refresher simulator check ride. Following leave in June to july 1995, xxx was scheduled for refresher simulator training (required when pilots have gone more than 30 days without flying). He was first admonished, incorrectly according to his testimony, for preparing an out-of-date simulator scenario. Then, following a simulated landing that was difficult to control, he was admonished in front of a fellow pilot who was a Singaporean. xxx suspects that the landing was deliberately made difficult in order to belittle him.
5. MY. xxx testified that MY, am SIA pilot, refused to let xxx fly after he learned that xxx had not contributed to a "completion-of-[Airbus]-310-school" party. He repeatedly admonished xxx "anytime there was someone in the flight deck." In addition, MY sent a note to another SIA captain that referred to xxx as "the big fat guy."
6. Handing out of certificates. xxx testified that, following a training session in Thailand, certificates were handed out in order of Singaporean, malaysian, Eurasian, Caucasian, within the ranks of captain and first officer. xxx, as a Caucasian, got his last.
7. Assignment to Aircraft Training. xxx testified that he believed that he was not selected for the prestigious and higher-paid 747-400 training in the spring of 1994 and because he was caucasian and "American." Instead, he was trained to fly an Airbus 310.
These are all of the incidents alleged by xxx to form the basis of his discrimination counterclaims and defenses. Not one of these incidents occured in, or even near, the United States. Most of them occured in Singapore; all of them occured within the context of xxx's employment with SIA, a Singaporean entity. Moreover, xxx's reason for leaving SIA was not associated with any of these incidents.
III. DISCUSSION
Defendant's defenses and counterclaims regarding discrimination and wage withholding should be dismissed because (1) xxx has denied that Singapore law applies, and the acts and events complained of by xxx, even when viwed in the light most favorable to him, fail to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted under either State of xxx or U.S. law; and (2) in any event, xxx admits that he was not constructively discharged.
A. Summary Judgement Standards.
Summery judgement is appropriate if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogations, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P.56(c). A party may not simply rest on its pleadings; if a party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of any essential element to its case, or to refute any otherwise established affirmative defense of the moving party, the moving party is entitled to summery judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.317,322-23,91L.Ed.2d265,106S.Ct2548(1986). When the record taken as a whole could not lead a retional trier of facts to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial. Matsu****a Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S.574,587,89L.Ed.2d538,106S.Ct.1348(1986). In addition, partial summery judgment is appropriate when the movant can show that no genuine issue of material fact exists with regard to particular claims or parts of claims. See Fed.R.CivP.56(b); Wang Laboratories,Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electronics Am., Inc., 860F.Supp.1448.1450-51(C.D.Cal.1993).
B. xxx's discrimination claims and defenses should be dismissed because the acts and events that compromise his discrimination defenses and counterclaims fail to state a cause of action under either the State of xxx or federal Law and xxx has asserted that Singapore law does not apply.
The parties claims, counterclaims and defenses have been brought in a U.S. court based upon events that occured in or near singapore. See complaint; answer; and statement of facts, above. therefore, one or more of three seperate sets of laws would ordinarily apply: the law of Singapore, as pled by SIA, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.44.1, the law of the United States, or the laws of the State of xxx (the situs of this court). See generally Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and procedures, 2112. In this case, however, xxx's discrimination defenses and counterclaims may not be addressed under Singapore law: not only has xxx failed to plead application of foreign law as he must do under Fed.R.Civ.P.44.1, but he has affirmatively denied that Singapore law applies to this action.
Thus, to state causes of action, xxx's claims must be cognizable under either the State of xxx law or U.S. law. As set forth below, summery judgment on this issue is appropriate because neither Title VII of the U.S. Code nor the State of xxx law against discrimination recognizes a cause for the incidents and acts described in xxx's complaint.
The reason for this is simple: as set forth in the statement of facts, above, each of the incidents of discrimination alleged by xxx occured in or near Singapore while xxx was an employee of SIA, a foreign corporation; not a single incident occured in or near the United sates. In fact, for the entire period of employment with SIA, xxx was stationed in Singapore, and not in the United States. Finally, SIA is not in any sense a "State of xxx" employer.
It is well settled that Title VII of the U.S. Code, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race and national origin (the basis of xxx allegations), is inapplicable to either U.S. or foreign corporations employing U.S. citizens abroad.
Rest to follow.
Guest
Posts: n/a
In a case involving a suit brought by a US citizen employed in Saudia Arabia by a US employer, the Supreme Court rejected petitioner's argument that Title VII applied to US companies abroad, saying:
If prtitioners are correct that alien-exemption clauses means that the statute applies to employers overseas, we see no way of distin guishing in its application between United States emplyers and foreign employers. Thus, a French emplyer of a united states citizen in France would be subject to title VII - a result at which even petitioners balk. The EEOC assures us that in its view the term "employer" means only "American employer," but there is no such distinction in the statute and no indication that the EEOC in the normal course of its administration had produced a reasoned basis for such a distinction ... [Congress] we are inwilling to ascribe to a policy which would raise difficult issues of international law by imposing this country's-discrimination regime uponforeign companies operating in foreign commerce. EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co. (ARAMCO), 499U.S.244,256,113L.Ed.2d274,111S.Ct.1227(1991) (mphasis added).
Here, xxx has brought counterclaims (and raised defenses) against a foreign employer for incidents that, without exception, occured overseas. This is the situation at which "even petitioners balk[ed]" in the ARAMCO decision, supra. Accordingly, xxx's discrimination counterclaims and defenses are not cognizable under federal law.
Similarly, xxx's dicsrimination counterclaims and defenses do not state a cause of action under the State of xxx law. In the first place, it is nonsensical to suggest that the State of xxx intended to regulate the actions of foreign companies employing U.S. citizens abroad more rigorously than did United States Congress. This is particularly true because xxx state law against discrimination, RCW 49.60 st seq., "substantially parallels the federal law against discrimination, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000(e), et seq." Because of this, "State of xxx courts have looked to the interpretation of the federal law in construing RCW 49.60." Farnam v. Crista Ministries, Selberg v. United Pac. Ins. Co., Hollingsworth v. Washington Mut. Sav. Bank, Davis v. Dept of labor and Indus.
In fact, the limitations of RCW 49.60 have been explicitly recognized by xxx courts. In Burnside v. Simpson Paper Company, while refusing to limit the availability of this state's discrimination laws to plaintiffs who are not this States "inhabitants," the court noted that "as wein Section 2 of this opinion, the purpose of RCW 49.60 is to regulate This State's employers." As SIA is not in any sense an "employer of this State," RCW 49.60 cannot apply.
This reluctance of the courts to apply the laws of this State to acts commited by foreign corporations which occur outside of this State's sovereign territory is also reflected in this State's stance on choice of law issue." In this action, there can be no question as to whether Singapore or this State's has the more significant relationship to the acts complained of by xxx. All of the acts and events complained of occured in Singapore. xxx interviewed for his position in Singapore and was stationed there during the entire period of this employment. In addition, although xxx resided in this State immediately after he left SIA, he now lives in a different State. Accordingly, if this were a choice of law question, Singapore law would clearly apply and this State's law would not be considered.
O course, no choice of law analysis is necessary in this matter: xxx has taken the position that Singapore law does not apply to his claims or defenses. Nevertheless, it is clear that this State's legislators, like the United Sates Congress, never intended to enforce its anti-discrimination laws on behalf of U.S. citizens employed overseas by foreign corporations. Thus, xxx's discrimination claims and defenses are not cognizable under this State's laws.
As neither this State's laws nor federal laws recognize a cause of action for xxx's claims, and because Singapore law by xxx's own allegations does not apply, xx's discrimination claims and defenses should be dismissed.
For the same reasons, xxx's wage withholding counterclaims under RCW 49.48 and 49.52 do not state a cause of action and must be dismissed.
C. xxx's constructive discharge defenses and counterclaims should be dismissed because xxx admits that he resigned from SIA inorder to rejoin his wife and not because of any discrimination or intolerable working conditions caused by SIA.
In any event, xx's defenses and counterclaims regarding constructive discharge should be dismissed because xxx himself admits that he left SIA not because of any act of his employer, but, rather, because his wife could not adjust to living conditions overseas and refused to remain in Singapore.
Under this State's law, a "constructive discharge occurs when an emplyer deliberately makes an employee's working conditions intolerable, thereby forcing the employee to resign."
Here, xxx did not leave because he was deliberately forced out by hid employer. xxx himself expressed the actual reasons in his letter of resignation:
"It is heratfelt regret that I have decided to resign my position with Singapore Airlines effective 31 January. Over the last four months we have tried to discover a solution to my family problem that necessatates my return home. Unfortunately, no solution was found tallows me to work for the company and rejoin my wife. Unfortunately, this leaves me with a situation requiring me to chooss between my wife and the airline."
Letter from xxx to captain LM, Assistant Director of SIA Flight Operations, dated Jan 25, 1996, exhibit C.
xxx has flatly admitted that he didi not leave SIA because of his employer's alleged discrimination - and in fact, he made every effort to continue his employment. See statement of facts, above, and exhibits. This testimony has eliminated any basis for his constructive discharge claim and it should be dischraged.
IV. CONCLUSION
For all the reasons given above, xxx's claims and defenses regarding discrimination should be dismissed, and partial summary judgment should be granted in favor of SIA. A proposed Order is attached.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 18th day of September, 1997.
If prtitioners are correct that alien-exemption clauses means that the statute applies to employers overseas, we see no way of distin guishing in its application between United States emplyers and foreign employers. Thus, a French emplyer of a united states citizen in France would be subject to title VII - a result at which even petitioners balk. The EEOC assures us that in its view the term "employer" means only "American employer," but there is no such distinction in the statute and no indication that the EEOC in the normal course of its administration had produced a reasoned basis for such a distinction ... [Congress] we are inwilling to ascribe to a policy which would raise difficult issues of international law by imposing this country's-discrimination regime uponforeign companies operating in foreign commerce. EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co. (ARAMCO), 499U.S.244,256,113L.Ed.2d274,111S.Ct.1227(1991) (mphasis added).
Here, xxx has brought counterclaims (and raised defenses) against a foreign employer for incidents that, without exception, occured overseas. This is the situation at which "even petitioners balk[ed]" in the ARAMCO decision, supra. Accordingly, xxx's discrimination counterclaims and defenses are not cognizable under federal law.
Similarly, xxx's dicsrimination counterclaims and defenses do not state a cause of action under the State of xxx law. In the first place, it is nonsensical to suggest that the State of xxx intended to regulate the actions of foreign companies employing U.S. citizens abroad more rigorously than did United States Congress. This is particularly true because xxx state law against discrimination, RCW 49.60 st seq., "substantially parallels the federal law against discrimination, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000(e), et seq." Because of this, "State of xxx courts have looked to the interpretation of the federal law in construing RCW 49.60." Farnam v. Crista Ministries, Selberg v. United Pac. Ins. Co., Hollingsworth v. Washington Mut. Sav. Bank, Davis v. Dept of labor and Indus.
In fact, the limitations of RCW 49.60 have been explicitly recognized by xxx courts. In Burnside v. Simpson Paper Company, while refusing to limit the availability of this state's discrimination laws to plaintiffs who are not this States "inhabitants," the court noted that "as wein Section 2 of this opinion, the purpose of RCW 49.60 is to regulate This State's employers." As SIA is not in any sense an "employer of this State," RCW 49.60 cannot apply.
This reluctance of the courts to apply the laws of this State to acts commited by foreign corporations which occur outside of this State's sovereign territory is also reflected in this State's stance on choice of law issue." In this action, there can be no question as to whether Singapore or this State's has the more significant relationship to the acts complained of by xxx. All of the acts and events complained of occured in Singapore. xxx interviewed for his position in Singapore and was stationed there during the entire period of this employment. In addition, although xxx resided in this State immediately after he left SIA, he now lives in a different State. Accordingly, if this were a choice of law question, Singapore law would clearly apply and this State's law would not be considered.
O course, no choice of law analysis is necessary in this matter: xxx has taken the position that Singapore law does not apply to his claims or defenses. Nevertheless, it is clear that this State's legislators, like the United Sates Congress, never intended to enforce its anti-discrimination laws on behalf of U.S. citizens employed overseas by foreign corporations. Thus, xxx's discrimination claims and defenses are not cognizable under this State's laws.
As neither this State's laws nor federal laws recognize a cause of action for xxx's claims, and because Singapore law by xxx's own allegations does not apply, xx's discrimination claims and defenses should be dismissed.
For the same reasons, xxx's wage withholding counterclaims under RCW 49.48 and 49.52 do not state a cause of action and must be dismissed.
C. xxx's constructive discharge defenses and counterclaims should be dismissed because xxx admits that he resigned from SIA inorder to rejoin his wife and not because of any discrimination or intolerable working conditions caused by SIA.
In any event, xx's defenses and counterclaims regarding constructive discharge should be dismissed because xxx himself admits that he left SIA not because of any act of his employer, but, rather, because his wife could not adjust to living conditions overseas and refused to remain in Singapore.
Under this State's law, a "constructive discharge occurs when an emplyer deliberately makes an employee's working conditions intolerable, thereby forcing the employee to resign."
Here, xxx did not leave because he was deliberately forced out by hid employer. xxx himself expressed the actual reasons in his letter of resignation:
"It is heratfelt regret that I have decided to resign my position with Singapore Airlines effective 31 January. Over the last four months we have tried to discover a solution to my family problem that necessatates my return home. Unfortunately, no solution was found tallows me to work for the company and rejoin my wife. Unfortunately, this leaves me with a situation requiring me to chooss between my wife and the airline."
Letter from xxx to captain LM, Assistant Director of SIA Flight Operations, dated Jan 25, 1996, exhibit C.
xxx has flatly admitted that he didi not leave SIA because of his employer's alleged discrimination - and in fact, he made every effort to continue his employment. See statement of facts, above, and exhibits. This testimony has eliminated any basis for his constructive discharge claim and it should be dischraged.
IV. CONCLUSION
For all the reasons given above, xxx's claims and defenses regarding discrimination should be dismissed, and partial summary judgment should be granted in favor of SIA. A proposed Order is attached.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 18th day of September, 1997.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The above was a motion by the plaintiff (SIA)for Partial Summary Judgment which was scheduled for Oct 10, 1997.
The motion never took place, instead this letter was forwarded to the court on October 6, 1997.
October 6, 1997
Hon. Franklin D. Burgess
United States District Judge
United States District Courthouse
Re: Singapore Airlines, Ltd. v. xxx
Case No. 96-5858FDB
Thank you for responding to my telephone message so prompyly. As I stated, please strike the summary judgment motion in the above captioned matter noted for October 10, 1997.
As I mentioned, the parties have reached a settlement and expected to be forwarding a stipulated Judgment for entry by the Court in the near future. We do not expect that there will be any further activity in this case in the meantime.
Please do not hesistate to contact me if you have any questions.
The motion never took place, instead this letter was forwarded to the court on October 6, 1997.
October 6, 1997
Hon. Franklin D. Burgess
United States District Judge
United States District Courthouse
Re: Singapore Airlines, Ltd. v. xxx
Case No. 96-5858FDB
Thank you for responding to my telephone message so prompyly. As I stated, please strike the summary judgment motion in the above captioned matter noted for October 10, 1997.
As I mentioned, the parties have reached a settlement and expected to be forwarding a stipulated Judgment for entry by the Court in the near future. We do not expect that there will be any further activity in this case in the meantime.
Please do not hesistate to contact me if you have any questions.
Guest
Posts: n/a
So SIA and Mr.xxx reached a settlement without a court contest. No judge or jury ever made a judgment on this case.
SIA's main concerns were (a) To have claims of racial discrimination dropped, (b) They needed to not come back empty handed after spending 10s of thousands of dollars chasing a guy which was actually laid off his job at that time with barely any assets.
So the deal was for Mr.xxx to agree to a stipulated Judgement for entry by the court for the full amount of US $205,000 in return for an unknown deal. xxx was gagged.
October 29, 1997
Case No. 96-5858FDB
STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIMS AND DIRECTING CLERK TO ENTER JUDGEMENT FOR PLAINTIFF.
I. STIPULATION
Plaintiff Singapore Airlines, Ltd. ("SIA") and defendant xxx stipulate and agree as follows:
1. SIA is the "flag" commercial air carrier of the republic of Singapore, with its headquarters and center of operations in Singapore. xxx is a pilot and former Singapore-based employee of SIA. SIA brought this action against xxx to recover a portion of the cost of training xxx to fly commercial aircraft.
2. The parties agree that xxx executed a "Bonding Agreement" in which he promised to reimburse SIA for a portion of these training costs on a sliding scale if he separated from SIA before completing seven years service. The parties also agree that xxx resigned during his second year of service, and that neither he nor the sureties to his bonding Agreement have made or attempted repayment.
3. In responce to SIA's complaint, xxx brought counterclaims alleging that SIA and its agents had discriminated against him on the basis of his race and national origin, as a result of which he was constructively discharged. xxx also argued that SIA was improperly withholding his wages in violation of the State of xxx law, that SIA fraudulently or negligently induced him to enter into the employment relationship and bonding agreement, and that the liquidated damages provisions of the bonding agreemnet is an unenforceable penalty clause.
4. Following discovery and mediation, the parties have agreed upon a settlement of the lawsuit.
5. As part of the settlement, xxx agrees and requests that his counterclaims agaimst SIA be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in their entirety.
6. In addition, xxx and SIA independently agree that SIA's claims against xxx, which are based on breach of contract and unjust enrichment, should be appropriately and reasonably resolved by entry of judgment against xxx in the amount of U.S. $205,000.
7. The parties agree that each party shall bear his/its own costs, except for such costs as are included in the judgement amount.
8. The parties further agree that their settlement Agreement is contingent upon entry of the agreed amount.
II. ORDER
PURSUENT TO the forwgoing Stipulation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. xxx counterclaims in this matter are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in their entirety;
2. The Clerk is directed to promptly enter judgment for SIA on its breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against XXX, in the amount of U.S. $205,000.
3. Each party is to bear its own costs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this court having addressed all of the claims and counterclaims in their entirety, the issues in this action are completely resolved.
DONE IN OPEN COURT this 29 day of October, 1997.
SIA's main concerns were (a) To have claims of racial discrimination dropped, (b) They needed to not come back empty handed after spending 10s of thousands of dollars chasing a guy which was actually laid off his job at that time with barely any assets.
So the deal was for Mr.xxx to agree to a stipulated Judgement for entry by the court for the full amount of US $205,000 in return for an unknown deal. xxx was gagged.
October 29, 1997
Case No. 96-5858FDB
STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIMS AND DIRECTING CLERK TO ENTER JUDGEMENT FOR PLAINTIFF.
I. STIPULATION
Plaintiff Singapore Airlines, Ltd. ("SIA") and defendant xxx stipulate and agree as follows:
1. SIA is the "flag" commercial air carrier of the republic of Singapore, with its headquarters and center of operations in Singapore. xxx is a pilot and former Singapore-based employee of SIA. SIA brought this action against xxx to recover a portion of the cost of training xxx to fly commercial aircraft.
2. The parties agree that xxx executed a "Bonding Agreement" in which he promised to reimburse SIA for a portion of these training costs on a sliding scale if he separated from SIA before completing seven years service. The parties also agree that xxx resigned during his second year of service, and that neither he nor the sureties to his bonding Agreement have made or attempted repayment.
3. In responce to SIA's complaint, xxx brought counterclaims alleging that SIA and its agents had discriminated against him on the basis of his race and national origin, as a result of which he was constructively discharged. xxx also argued that SIA was improperly withholding his wages in violation of the State of xxx law, that SIA fraudulently or negligently induced him to enter into the employment relationship and bonding agreement, and that the liquidated damages provisions of the bonding agreemnet is an unenforceable penalty clause.
4. Following discovery and mediation, the parties have agreed upon a settlement of the lawsuit.
5. As part of the settlement, xxx agrees and requests that his counterclaims agaimst SIA be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in their entirety.
6. In addition, xxx and SIA independently agree that SIA's claims against xxx, which are based on breach of contract and unjust enrichment, should be appropriately and reasonably resolved by entry of judgment against xxx in the amount of U.S. $205,000.
7. The parties agree that each party shall bear his/its own costs, except for such costs as are included in the judgement amount.
8. The parties further agree that their settlement Agreement is contingent upon entry of the agreed amount.
II. ORDER
PURSUENT TO the forwgoing Stipulation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. xxx counterclaims in this matter are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in their entirety;
2. The Clerk is directed to promptly enter judgment for SIA on its breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against XXX, in the amount of U.S. $205,000.
3. Each party is to bear its own costs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this court having addressed all of the claims and counterclaims in their entirety, the issues in this action are completely resolved.
DONE IN OPEN COURT this 29 day of October, 1997.
Guest
Posts: n/a
In an Flight International article, there was a mention of this case. The official news in Singapore broadcasted by the Television corporation of Singapore was that the pilot lost in a US court. Misinformation.
It has been my pleasure and privilage to have been able to obtain the case details thanks to the freedom of information act in the United States, and having informed the interested PPRuNe readers.
I promise you more interesting details in Singapore Airlines vs. Gladiator, presently active. SIA's intentions in this type of cases are to break the defendant of legal funds. Then go for any deal to their favor.
Fortunately due to the large number of enemies SIA and Singapore has managed to create, Gladiator will not be short of legal funds. I promise all the readers great information that would shock the commercial air travel industry.
Singapore Airlines vs. Gladiator will be tried in a Federal Court by a jury. Let the people decide.
For all of those e-mails with offer to help with my legal fund, I am very grateful. Sorry I havn't gotten back to you yet, my e-mail is backed up. I'll be posting a bank account number based in Los Angeles, California very soon.
It has been my pleasure and privilage to have been able to obtain the case details thanks to the freedom of information act in the United States, and having informed the interested PPRuNe readers.
I promise you more interesting details in Singapore Airlines vs. Gladiator, presently active. SIA's intentions in this type of cases are to break the defendant of legal funds. Then go for any deal to their favor.
Fortunately due to the large number of enemies SIA and Singapore has managed to create, Gladiator will not be short of legal funds. I promise all the readers great information that would shock the commercial air travel industry.
Singapore Airlines vs. Gladiator will be tried in a Federal Court by a jury. Let the people decide.
For all of those e-mails with offer to help with my legal fund, I am very grateful. Sorry I havn't gotten back to you yet, my e-mail is backed up. I'll be posting a bank account number based in Los Angeles, California very soon.
