The Supreme Court/The Supreme Court.iso/pc/ascii/1991/91_522/91_522.zd

Text File | 1993-03-23 | 3.6 KB | 75 lines

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
--------
No. 91-522
--------
SAUDI ARABIA, KING FAISAL SPECIALIST
HOSPITAL and ROYSPEC, PETITIONERS v.
SCOTT NELSON et ux.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court
of appeals for the eleventh circuit
[March 23, 1993]

  Justice Stevens, dissenting.
  Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), a
foreign state is subject to the jurisdiction of American
courts if two conditions are met: The action must be
-based upon a commercial activity- and that activity must
have a -substantial contact with the United States.-
These two conditions should be separately analyzed
because they serve two different purposes.  The former
excludes commercial activity from the scope of the foreign
sovereign's immunity from suit; the second identifies the
contacts with the United States that support the assertion
of jurisdiction over the defendant.
  In this case, as Justice White has demonstrated,
petitioner's operation of the hospital and its employment
practices and disciplinary procedures are -commercial
activities- within the meaning of the statute, and respond-
ent's claim that he was punished for acts performed in the
course of his employment was unquestionably -based
upon- those activities.  Thus, the first statutory condition
is satisfied; petitioner is not entitled to immunity from the
claims asserted by respondent.
  Unlike Justice White, however, I am also convinced
that petitioner's commercial activities-whether defined as
the regular course of conduct of operating a hospital or,
more specifically, as the commercial transaction of engag-
ing respondent -as an employee with specific responsibili-
ties in that enterprise,- Brief for Respondents 25-have
sufficient contact with the United States to justify the
exercise of federal jurisdiction.  Petitioner Royspec main-
tains an office in Maryland and purchases hospital sup-
plies and equipment in this country.  For nearly two
decades the Hospital's American agent has maintained an
office in the United States and regularly engaged in the
recruitment of personnel in this country.  Respondent
himself was recruited in the United States and entered
into his employment contract with the hospital in the
United States.  Before traveling to Saudi Arabia to
assume his position at the hospital, respondent attended
an orientation program in Tennessee.  The position for
which respondent was recruited and ultimately hired was
that of a monitoring systems manager, a troubleshooter,
and, taking respondent's allegations as true, it was
precisely respondent's performance of those responsibilities
that led to the hospital's retaliatory actions against him.
  Whether the first clause of 1605(a)(2) broadly author-
izes -general- jurisdiction over foreign entities that engage
in substantial commercial activity in this country, or, more
narrowly, authorizes only -specific- jurisdiction over
particular commercial claims that have a substantial
contact with the United States, petitioners' contacts with
the United States in this case are, in my view, plainly
sufficient to subject petitioners to suit in this country on
a claim arising out of its nonimmune commercial activity
relating to respondent.  If the same activities had been
performed by a private business, I have no doubt jur-
isdiction would be upheld.  And that, of course, should be
a touchstone of our inquiry; for as Justice White ex-
plains, ante, at 4, n. 2, 6, when a foreign nation sheds its
uniquely sovereign status and seeks out the benefits of
the private marketplace, it must, like any private party,
bear the burdens and responsibilities imposed by that
marketplace.  I would therefore affirm the judgment of the
Court of Appeals.