Question

Kaizen Automotive, a Japanese automaker, has a production facility in Ohio that employees over 600 workers. In December 2013, it announces an executive position has opened at the facility and solicits applications. Among the finalists for the position is June, a Japanese citizen and graduate of MIT with four year's experience in automotive production. Another candidate is John, an African American who is also an MIT graduate and holds an MBA from Harvard. John has over ten year's automotive manufacturing experience. In very short order, Kaizen announces that June is the successful candidate and offers her the position. John files a charge with the EEOC alleging that he was not selected for the position because of his race and national origin. Kaizen states that it lawfully considered June's Japanese citizenship pursuant to a treaty permitting it to favor Japanese applicants. The subsequent EEOC investigation reveals that a Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation exists and that Kaizen has never promoted an American citizen to an executive level position in its U.S operations.

a. Does John have a viable Title VII complaint? Why or why not?

b. If June had been a U.S. citizen of Japanese ancestry, would the outeome be changed?

c. If June had been a Chinese citizen, would the outeome be changed?

Answer 1

Q-a. Does John have a viable Title VII complaint? Why or why not?

A: John would have had a viable Title VII complaint against Kaizen Automotive if it had not been for the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation. This is an international treaty granting diplomatic status to certain interests in trade and commerce, international relations, cooperation and thereby gives certain protections and exceptions to Kaizen Automative in the running of its business which would include its recruitment policy to favour its country's citizens as a form of reservation in the company. There is a provision of the "Right of Choice" in the said Treaty which is clear and binding thereby granting immunity to Kaizen Automotive from prosecution in the U.S. Thus, John's compliant would have to be dismissed as being untenable by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Q-b.  If June had been a U.S. citizen of Japanese ancestry, would the outcome be changed?

A: Yes, the outcome may have changed had June been an U.S. citizen and not a Japanese citizen. If June had been an U.S. citizen perhaps John would have been selected instead of her based on merit alone. John is the better qualified candidate than June in terms of both educational qualifications being a MIT graduate and holding an MBA from Harvard and experience of over ten years in automotive manufacturing which is specialized and relevant to this job requirement. Also, the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation would not have applied in this case as June was not a Japanese, but an U.S. citizen. Thus, had June been an U.S. citizen, the outcome would have changed and John should have either been selected or would have had a viable Title VII complaint against Kaizen Automotive with the EEOC.

Q-c. If June had been a Chinese citizen, would the outcome be changed?

A: Yes, again in such a scenario, the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation would not have applied since June would not have been a Japanese citizen, and John is the better qualified candidate than June in terms of both educational qualifications being a MIT graduate and holding an MBA from Harvard and experience of over ten years in automotive manufacturing which is specialized and relevant to this job requirement. Thus, had June been a Chinese citizen, the outcome would have changed and John should have either been selected or would have had a viable Title VII complaint against Kaizen Automotive with the EEOC.