## Facts

- Rajaa Al Mukaddam worked for more than 14 years for the Permanent Mission of Saudi Arabia to the United Nations in New York.
- She alleged that beginning in 1996 she experienced harassment and gender discrimination and was terminated in April 1998.
- She sued the Mission under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law for discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination.
- The Mission moved to dismiss, asserting sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim.
- Because the case implicated diplomatic and U.N.-related instruments, the court solicited views from the U.S. Department of State and the U.N. Office of Legal Affairs.

## Issues

1. Whether the FSIA barred the suit, or whether the employment relationship fell within the FSIA “commercial activity” exception.
2. Whether Article 7 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations conferred immunity or otherwise barred employment-related suits against a diplomatic mission in U.S. courts.
3. Whether the U.N. Charter or the U.N.–U.S. Headquarters Agreement required dismissal to protect the functioning of a permanent mission to the United Nations.
4. Whether, absent immunity, the Mission could be sued as an “employer” under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The court denied the Mission’s motion to dismiss.
- The court held that the suit fell within the FSIA commercial activity exception because the alleged employment relationship was commercial in nature on the record presented, rather than a core sovereign function.
- The court held that Article 7 of the Vienna Convention does not provide immunity from claims by mission employees and does not override the FSIA framework.
- The court rejected the argument that the U.N. Charter or Headquarters Agreement required immunity for employment disputes involving a permanent mission.
- The court declined to dismiss the Title VII and NYSHRL claims on the theory that the Mission was not an “employer” or that the statutes categorically could not apply.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FSIA, foreign states and their entities are presumptively immune, but immunity is unavailable where the action is based upon “commercial activity” carried on in the United States.  
- Routine employment relationships for mission staff may constitute “commercial activity” for FSIA purposes, absent a showing that the employee is part of the foreign state’s civil service or engaged in core governmental functions.
- Article 7 of the Vienna Convention protects a sending state’s freedom to appoint mission personnel against receiving-state restrictions; it does not itself create immunity from civil employment claims by mission employees.
- The U.N. Charter and the U.N.–U.S. Headquarters Agreement do not, without specific text, require U.S. courts to decline jurisdiction over ordinary civil employment suits against permanent missions.
- At the motion-to-dismiss stage, where immunity does not apply, a diplomatic mission may be treated as subject to generally applicable employment-discrimination statutes based on pleaded facts establishing an employment relationship.

## Conclusion

The court allowed an employment-discrimination suit against a foreign permanent mission to proceed, holding that the FSIA commercial activity exception applied to the employment relationship and that neither the Vienna Convention nor U.N.-related agreements barred jurisdiction or warranted dismissal of the Title VII and NYSHRL claims at the pleading stage.


Mukaddam v. Permanent Mission of Saudi Arabia to the United Nations, 111 F. Supp. 2d 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)