Holden

Holden v. Canadian Consulate

Good Law
92 F.3d 918·96 Daily Journal DAR 9741·1996 WL 453266·68 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 44,240·71 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 929
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 9, 1996No. 94-17130California1,742 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Leavy, J.

Arlene Holden, a former commercial officer, sued the Canadian Consulate for wrongful termination alleging, among other claims, sex and age discrimination. The. Consulate moved to dismiss Holden’s complaint based on sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. § 1602 . The district court denied the motion finding that Holden’s claims were based on a commercial activity, an exception to sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (a)(2). The Consulate interlocutorily appeals the district court’s order. We have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. Schoenberg v. Exportadora de Sal, S.A. de C.V., 930 F.2d 777, 779 (9th Cir.1991). We affirm.

*920 I. Background

In February 1993, the Canadian government closed its Consulate in San Francisco. As a result, the Consulate laid off numerous employees, including appellee Holden. Holden was a “Commercial Officer” within the Trade and Investment Section of the Canadian Consulate. She held the same position throughout her thirteen year tenure with the Consulate. Her job involved responding to inquiries from Canadian companies regarding information on prospective buyers, assistance in obtaining sales…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.