## Facts

- Two Jewish anesthesiologists employed by Baylor College of Medicine served as assistant professors in the Department of Anesthesiology and worked at a leading cardiovascular surgical unit at a Houston hospital.
- Baylor operated a program sending medical teams to King Faisal Hospital in Saudi Arabia for three-month rotations, including anesthesiologists.
- The agreement establishing the rotation did not specify eligibility criteria.
- The physicians sought participation in the Saudi rotations and alleged they were qualified.
- Baylor officials believed Jewish participants would be unwelcome in Saudi Arabia and might face safety risks.
- Baylor was not expressly informed by Saudi authorities or the hospital that Jews could not participate.
- No Jewish personnel participated in the Saudi rotation program.
- The physicians sued Baylor in federal court asserting discrimination-based claims and claims under the antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended.

## Issues

1. Whether the antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Act imply a private cause of action for individuals injured by conduct the statute prohibits.
2. Whether American Jews are within the class the antiboycott amendments were enacted to protect for purposes of implying a private remedy.
3. Whether implying a private remedy under the antiboycott provisions is consistent with congressional intent, the statutory scheme, and the absence of an adequate state-law substitute.

## Decision

- After a bench trial, the court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).
- The court held that the Export Administration Act’s antiboycott provisions imply a private cause of action for Jewish persons injured by acts made unlawful by those provisions.
- The court concluded that American Jews are within an “especial class” the antiboycott amendments were designed to protect.
- Applying the Cort v. Ash factors, the court found the legislative history supported a private remedy, that a private remedy furthered the statutory purpose, and that no adequate state-law cause of action addressed the boycott-related discrimination alleged.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court may imply a private right of action from a federal statute when the Cort v. Ash factors, taken together, support that implication.
- Under the Cort framework, relevant considerations include whether the plaintiff is among the statute’s intended beneficiaries, whether legislative intent supports a private remedy, whether a private remedy fits the statutory scheme, and whether the matter is traditionally left to state law.
- The antiboycott amendments to the Export Administration Act may support private enforcement by individuals directly harmed by boycott-related discrimination prohibited by the statute.

## Conclusion

The court recognized an implied private right of action under the Export Administration Act’s antiboycott provisions for Jewish physicians allegedly excluded from a Saudi rotation program due to perceived foreign preferences or safety concerns, reasoning that the plaintiffs fell within the protected class and that implying a remedy was supported by statutory purpose and congressional intent.


Abrams v. Baylor Coll. of Med., 581 F. Supp. 1570 (S.D. Tex. 1984)