## Facts

- Three domestic workers from India were employed as live-in household staff for a Kuwaiti diplomat and his spouse, first in Kuwait and then in the United States.
- Before travel to the United States, the workers alleged they signed contracts promising $1,314 per month and compliance with U.S. labor laws; they obtained A-3 visas based on those contracts.
- The diplomat served at the Kuwaiti Embassy in Washington, D.C. from 2005 to 2007.
- The workers alleged that in the United States they worked 16–19 hours per day, seven days a week, were underpaid, had passports taken, were restricted from leaving unaccompanied, and were subjected to threats and abuse.
- After leaving the household, the workers filed a civil suit asserting claims under the TVPA, the FLSA, and common-law tort and contract theories.
- The diplomat and spouse moved to dismiss and to quash service, asserting diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) and the Diplomatic Relations Act; the United States supported the immunity determination.

## Issues

1. Whether the diplomat and spouse were immune from suit under the VCDR and Diplomatic Relations Act for the alleged conduct.
2. Whether employing domestic workers in a private household fell within the VCDR’s civil-jurisdiction “commercial activity” exception.
3. Whether the Thirteenth Amendment, jus cogens prohibitions on slavery/trafficking, or the TVPA displaced or limited diplomatic immunity.
4. Whether any immunity persisted after the diplomat’s posting ended under the VCDR’s residual-immunity provision.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as to the diplomat and spouse based on diplomatic immunity.
- The court quashed service of process as to those defendants.
- The court held the VCDR’s commercial-activity exception did not apply to the private employment of domestic staff by diplomatic personnel.
- The court held neither constitutional and international-law prohibitions on slavery nor the TVPA abrogated diplomatic immunity absent clear legal text.
- The court recognized residual immunity after the posting ended for acts performed in the exercise of mission functions, while emphasizing that full immunity applied during accreditation.

## Legal Principles

- Diplomatic immunity under the VCDR is status-based and broadly bars civil jurisdiction except for the treaty’s express exceptions.
- The VCDR “commercial activity” exception in Article 31(1)(c) is construed narrowly and does not include a diplomat’s private hiring and supervision of domestic workers as household staff.
- Courts will not infer unwritten exceptions to diplomatic immunity based on alleged violations of peremptory international norms or constitutional provisions; immunity operates as a jurisdictional bar rather than a merits determination.
- A later-enacted statute does not impliedly repeal treaty-based diplomatic immunity absent a clear statement; the TVPA applies subject to existing immunities.
- After a diplomatic posting ends, residual immunity under Article 39(2) covers acts performed in the exercise of mission functions.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the domestic workers’ trafficking, wage, and related civil claims against a diplomat and his spouse because the VCDR and implementing law conferred immunity, the commercial-activity exception did not cover private household employment, and neither the TVPA nor asserted constitutional or jus cogens norms displaced treaty-based immunity.


Sabbithi v. Al Saleh, 605 F. Supp. 2d 122 (D.D.C. 2009)