Bibliotechnical Athenaeum v. American University of Beirut

Background

Bibliotechnical Athenaeum (BA) alleged that the American University of Beirut (AUB) discriminated against it because BA was incorporated in Israel. BA said it registered for AUB’s career-services portal to recruit a paid intern and participate in a virtual career fair. After BA told AUB that it was an Israeli organization, AUB allegedly locked BA out of the system and stopped communicating with it about the career fair.

BA sued under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits intentional discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs receiving federal financial assistance. BA also brought claims under New York State and New York City law. AUB moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and also asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state and city claims if the federal claim was dismissed.

Title VI analysis

The court first concluded that BA’s corporate status did not automatically prevent it from bringing a Title VI claim. Relying on prior case law, the court explained that a corporation may sometimes have an “imputed” racial or national-origin identity based on its owners, directors, employees, or mission. The court stated that Title VI could therefore protect a corporation from discrimination based on such an identity.

The court held, however, that BA had not adequately alleged discrimination based on national origin. BA’s claim rested on its country of incorporation—Israel—not on the national origin of its owners, founders, directors, or employees. The court reasoned that a company’s incorporation country does not necessarily reflect the national origin of those people. It also rejected BA’s argument that its stated mission of fighting anti-Israeli discrimination established a national-origin identity or showed that AUB discriminated against it because of that mission.

The court concluded that BA had not pleaded that it possessed an imputed national-origin identity or that AUB’s treatment resulted from discrimination prohibited by Title VI. Because of that conclusion, the court did not decide whether Title VI applies to conduct outside the United States, whether the alleged conduct was extraterritorial, or whether BA was an intended beneficiary of an AUB program receiving federal funds.

State and city claims

After dismissing the federal Title VI claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over BA’s New York State and New York City claims. The court noted that the case was at an early stage and that no discovery had occurred.

Disposition

The court granted AUB’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice to BA filing an amended complaint within 30 days. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions and close the case, without prejudice to reopening it if BA filed an amended complaint within that period.