International organizations (immunities of)

• Author: International Law Group, PLLC
• Pages: 171-174

Page 171

Except as noted, the facts are not contested. Cynthia Brzak (Plaintiff) is an American citizen who worked in Geneva for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Nasr Ishak (secondary plaintiff) is a dual citizen of France and Egypt. She also worked for the UNHCR in Geneva.

Defendant Kofi Annan was formerly the UN Secretary-General with his office in New York City. Defendant Ruud Lubbers was the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and Defendant Wendy Chamberlin was his deputy. Both had Geneva assignments.

In this federal civil rights suit, Plaintiff also contends that during a meeting of UNHCR

Page 172

staff members in Geneva in 2003, Lubbers improperly grabbed her body in an indecent-but unspecified-manner.

On Ishak's advice, Plaintiff filed an internal complaint against Lubbers with the UN's Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). The OIOS issued a report confirming Plaintiff's complaint and recommending that the UN discipline Lubbers. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Annan disregarded the finding and eventually cleared Lubbers. Plaintiff then appealed through the UN's internal complaint adjustment process.

Both Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of Plaintiff Brzak's complaint, and Ishak's help in pursuing it, UN officials and employees retaliated against them. For example, they alleged that these officials unfairly distorted Plaintiff's work assignments and denied Ishak some merited promotions.

The Plaintiffs sued the UN and the individual Defendants in the Southern District of New York. They alleged sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., plus violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). They also changed various state common law torts-to be brought into federal court under its supplemental jurisdiction.

The UN formally returned the complaint to the American ambassador to the UN and moved to dismiss on the grounds of immunity, a motion supported by the local U.S. Attorney's Office. [ Brzak, 551 F. Supp.2d at 316; see Letter of United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Plaintiff v. UN, 06-Civ.-03432, 2007 WL 4846084 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 2, 2007).]

The district court granted the motion. The Judge concluded that the controlling law derived from the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, Feb. 13, 1946, entered into force with respect to the United States Apr. 29, 1970; [21 U.S.T. 1418; T.I.A.S. 6900; 1 U.N.T.S. 16] (the CPIUN), and that it granted the UN absolute immunity, which it had not waived, and dismissed the complaint against it.

With regard to the individual Defendants, the Judge concluded that the CPIUN granted them the same form of functional immunity that former diplomats enjoy under international law. This functional immunity, the judge held, applied to employment-related suits.

This appeal followed and in a March 2, 2010 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms. This court then explains its ruling.

"As the District Court correctly...