Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Arabian American Oil Co. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that Title VII does not apply extraterritorially to protect U.S. citizens working abroad for U.S. employers, citing the strong presumption against extraterritorial application of statutes and finding no clear congressional intent to overcome it.
Legal Significance: This case established that federal statutes are presumed to apply only domestically unless Congress makes a “clear statement” to the contrary. It significantly limited Title VII’s geographic scope until Congress legislatively overruled the decision in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Arabian American Oil Co. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Petitioner Ali Boureslan, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was hired in Texas by Aramco Service Company (ASC), a U.S. corporation. At his request, he was transferred to Saudi Arabia to work for ASC’s parent company, Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco), also a U.S. corporation. After several years, Aramco discharged Boureslan. He subsequently filed a lawsuit in the United States, alleging that he was harassed and ultimately terminated because of his race, religion, and national origin, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The employer, Aramco, moved to dismiss the claim, arguing that Title VII’s protections do not extend to U.S. citizens employed by American companies outside the territorial United States. The District Court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the question of Title VII’s extraterritorial application.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply extraterritorially to regulate the employment practices of United States employers who employ United States citizens abroad?
No. The Court held that Title VII does not apply extraterritorially. The Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut al
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply extraterritorially to regulate the employment practices of United States employers who employ United States citizens abroad?
Conclusion
The decision established a high bar for the extraterritorial application of federal Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut en
Legal Rule
Legislation of Congress is presumed to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris ni
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis centered on the strong "canon of construction" that congressional Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetu
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Holding: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does