Question: 1 Why did the court hold that Vance a U S

1. Why did the court hold that Vance, a U.S. corporation, could avoid Butters’s claim of discrimination based on a claim of sovereign immunity? Why did Butters argue that sovereign immunity should not apply?
2. How do you feel about the end result of this decision? Did Butters suffer discrimination? Explain.
Appellant Nyla Butters brought suit against her employer, Vance International, claiming that Vance discriminated against her on the basis of gender. The district court held that Vance was entitled to immunity from Butters’ suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act because Vance’s client, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, was responsible for Butters not being promoted.

Sale on SolutionInn
  • CreatedOctober 02, 2015
  • Files Included
Post your question