Service (INS) to verify that I was employed by the Department of State during the time I applied to (INS)."
This statement does not say that Mr. Andualem was sponsored for permanent residency by the State Department. Even if it did, however, it would not be sufficient to defeat the government's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case of impermissible discrimination merely by demonstrating that two individuals of different national origins were treated differently. Such a rule would require employers to defend against unnecessary and frivolous lawsuits. Indeed, this rule would work a particular hardship on the FSI which employs over a hundred foreign nationals as language instructors. See Exhibit A to the Declaration of Paul A. Stratton. Moreover, it would be particularly inappropriate to infer discriminatory intent from differing treatment in this case. Mr. Andualem obtained his permanent residency status more than 10 years before the FSI refused to sponsor the plaintiff. See Declaration of Paul A. Stratton at para. 7a. More importantly, both men are natives of African nations. While there has been a long and pernicious history of discrimination against people of African descent in this country, plaintiff has not attempted to demonstrate that discrimination against natives of one African nation and in favor of natives of another has been a significant problem. Even if the plaintiff had demonstrated the sponsorship of Mr. Andualem, therefore, he would not have established a prima facie case of national origin discrimination.
The Declaration of Mr. Thiuri, attached to the plaintiff's opposition to the motion for summary judgment, demonstrates that Mr. Thiuri's complaint is primarily a challenge to the wisdom and justice of the FSI's unwritten "no-sponsorship" policy. The declaration details Mr. Thiuri's frustrating and fruitless efforts to get the FSI to sponsor him; it takes issue with numerous statements and acts of the FSI and concludes that " my record of accomplishments and expertise at the Institute speaks of itself and the FSI can use it as a justification to sponsor me for permanent residency." (emphasis in the original). Thiuri Declaration of November 12, 1986 at para. 11. This complaint is simply not properly framed as a suit for national origin discrimination under Title VII.
Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint will be granted and plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction will be denied. Clearly, Mr. Thiuri will face great hardship if he is required to leave this country after spending most of his adult life here. At oral argument in this matter, the Court suggested to the plaintiff's attorney that he seek a private act of Congress. Hopefully, plaintiff will pursue this remedy and any other remedies that may be available to him.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.