## Facts

- Ali Boureslan, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was hired in 1979 in Houston, Texas by Aramco Services Company (ASC) as a cost engineer.
- In 1980, at his request, Boureslan transferred to work in Saudi Arabia for Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco).
- Boureslan worked in Saudi Arabia until his discharge in 1984.
- He filed an EEOC charge and sued in federal court alleging harassment and discharge based on race, religion, and national origin under Title VII and state law.
- The employers contended Title VII did not apply to U.S. citizens employed abroad.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies extraterritorially to regulate the employment practices of U.S. employers toward U.S. citizens working abroad.
2. Whether Title VII’s references to “commerce” involving places outside a State, or its exemption for “aliens outside any State,” supply the clear congressional intent needed to overcome the presumption against extraterritoriality.
3. What weight, if any, should be given to the EEOC’s interpretation that Title VII covers U.S. citizens employed overseas by U.S. employers.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit in a 6–3 decision.
- The Court held Title VII does not apply extraterritorially to U.S. firms employing U.S. citizens abroad.
- The Court applied the presumption against extraterritoriality and found no clearly expressed affirmative congressional intent to extend Title VII overseas.
- The Court found Title VII’s “foreign commerce” language too ambiguous and general to authorize extraterritorial application.
- The Court concluded the “alien exemption” clause did not, by negative implication, establish coverage for U.S. citizens abroad.
- The Court declined to treat the EEOC’s then-recent, changed interpretation as sufficient to supply the required clear statement.

## Legal Principles

- Federal statutes are presumed not to apply outside U.S. territory absent a clear indication of congressional intent.
- General jurisdictional or definitional references to foreign commerce, without more, typically do not overcome the presumption against extraterritoriality.
- A statutory exemption directed to conduct abroad (here, employment of aliens outside any State) does not necessarily imply affirmative extraterritorial coverage of other categories without clearer text.
- Concerns about international friction support requiring a clear statement before applying U.S. regulatory statutes to conduct occurring in a foreign country.
- Agency interpretations, especially those that are recent and represent a shift from earlier views, are not controlling where the statute lacks a clear statement for extraterritorial reach.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Title VII, as then written, did not extend to discrimination claims by U.S. citizens employed abroad by U.S. employers because Congress had not clearly stated an intent for extraterritorial application.


Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244 (1991)