 NEWS FROM THE COURTS
Reyes-Gaona v. North Carolina Growers Association, Inc., Fourth Circuit
In this case, the court ruled that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act does not cover foreign nationals seeking a US job from abroad.
Luis Reyes-Gaona, a Mexican national, sued the North Carolina Growers Association (NCGA) for violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Reyes-Gaona was told that the NCGA would not hire him because he was over 40.
Under the ADEA, the plaintiff must prove that they were qualified for the job sought. Based on this, and the fact that Reyes-Gaona was in Mexico and not authorized to work in the US, the district court dismissed the case. Reyes-Gaona appealed.
The Fourth Circuit began it’s examination of the case by noting the longstanding notion that US laws are meant to apply only in the US, unless Congress specifies otherwise. It then examined the discrimination prohibitions in the ADEA, which forbid an employer from making an employment decision based on a person’s age. It clearly applies to US citizens working abroad for US companies. Because Congress made explicit statements about the territorial application of the law, and did not state that it was to cover applicants for US jobs who were outside the US, the court found the ADEA was not intended to apply to cases like Reyes-Gaona. Therefore, it upheld the dismissal of the case.
The opinion is available online at http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/cases/2001,0523-Reyes.pdf. *********
Valioukevitch v. INS, Eighth Circuit
In this case, the court upheld the denial of asylum.
Viktor Valioukevitch, a citizen of Belarus, entered the US as a visitor in 1994. He overstayed his visa and in 1997 was placed in deportation proceedings. Valioukevitch sought asylum, saying that he would be subject to religious persecution in Belarus. The application was rejected by the Immigration Judge, who found that any hardship he had suffered was not because of his religious beliefs, was not inflicted by the government, and that it did not rise to the level of persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed and Valioukevitch appealed.
The court found that the Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals had ruled correctly. Not only was Valioukevitch not harassed by the government, government officials had punished those who did. Citing State Department reports about conditions in Belarus, the court found that Valioukevitch did not face a well-founded fear of persecution.
The opinion is available online at http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/cases/2001,0529-Valioukevitch.pdf.
| 
