Bibliotechnical Athenaeum v. American University of Beirut

Background

Bibliotechnical Athenaeum (BA) alleged that it is an Israeli corporation with its principal place of business in New York. It stated that its primary purpose was to fight against anti-Israeli discrimination. The American University of Beirut (AUB), a university located in Beirut, Lebanon, operated a virtual career fair and other career services for employers seeking to recruit its students and alumni.

BA registered for AUB’s career-services portal to recruit a paid intern and participate in the virtual career fair. AUB initially accepted the registration, but after BA stated that it was an Israeli organization, AUB locked BA out of the computer system and refused further communication about the career fair, according to the amended complaint.

BA’s original complaint asserted a claim under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and claims under New York State and New York City human-rights laws. The court previously dismissed that complaint without prejudice because BA had not alleged facts showing discrimination based on national origin rather than its country of incorporation. The court allowed BA to amend.

Amended complaint and arguments

BA’s amended complaint replaced the Title VI claim with a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Section 1981 protects the right of people within United States jurisdiction to make and enforce contracts and prohibits discrimination based on race or alienage in those contractual relationships, including employment contracts.

AUB argued that Section 1981 does not prohibit discrimination against a corporation based on its country of incorporation. AUB also argued that BA had not adequately alleged that discrimination was the necessary cause of the alleged harm and that Section 1981 did not reach the conduct alleged outside the United States.

Court’s reasoning

The court explained that a corporation can bring a federal discrimination claim when it is targeted because of an identity attributed to it from its shareholders, directors, officers, employees, or mission and activities. The same principle could apply to an attributed identity based on alienage. For example, the court stated that a corporation could be protected if it were denied a contract because its owners, directors, or employees were not citizens.

But the court found that BA had not alleged discrimination based on any such attributed identity. At most, BA alleged discrimination based on its state or country of incorporation. The court stated that it was aware of no authority making that type of discrimination actionable under Section 1981. The amended complaint did not add facts about BA’s owners, directors, officers, employees, other constituents, business activities, or corporate identity that would support a protected identity.

Because this pleading defect was fatal, the court did not decide whether BA adequately alleged the required causal connection or whether the alleged conduct occurred within the statute’s territorial reach.

Disposition

The court granted AUB’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint fails to state a legally sufficient claim. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over BA’s state and city claims for the reasons given in its earlier opinion. Because BA had already amended after receiving the court’s guidance and the court found that further amendment would be futile, it dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. The Clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case.