(4th Circuit – United States) The appellant worked for two years as a domestic servant in the home of the respondent diplomats. The appellant brought proceedings claiming damages for breach of the terms of her contract of employment. In response to a claim for diplomatic immunity, her argument was that ‘because ‘commerce’ is simply the exchange of goods and services, . . ‘commercial activity’ necessarily encompasses contracts for goods and services, including employment contracts.’
Held: The commercial activity exception to diplomatic immunity under article 31(1)(c) did not apply: ‘there may appear to be some unfairness to the person against whom the invocation occurs. But it must be remembered that the outcome merely reflects policy choices already made. Policymakers . . have believed that diplomatic immunity not only ensures the efficient functioning of diplomatic missions in foreign states, but fosters good will and enhances relations among nations. Thus, they have determined that apparent inequity to a private individual is outweighed by the great injury to the public that would arise from permitting suit against the entity or its agent calling for application of immunity. ‘
Citations:
(1996) 73F 3d 535, (1996) 107 ILR 452
Jurisdiction:
United States
Cited by:
Cited – Reyes and Another v Al-Malki and Another CA 5-Feb-2015
The claimants wished to make employment law claims alleging, inter alia, that they had suffered racial discrimination and harassment, and had been paid less than the national minimum wage aganst the respondents. They had been assessed as having been . .
Cited – Reyes v Al-Malki and Another SC 18-Oct-2017
The claimant alleged that she had been discrimated against in her work for the appellant, a member of the diplomatic staff at the Saudi Embassy in London. She now appealed against a decision that the respondent had diplomatic immunity.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, International
Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.542436
