Justices Hear Arguments on Bias Ban’s Effect Abroad

The rights of millions of U.S. workers overseas were at stake Wednesday as the Supreme Court tried to decipher Congress’ intent in passing a key 1964 law banning bias against women and minorities.

The Bush Administration argued that Congress, without saying so explicitly, intended to apply the law to American workers employed by U.S. companies in foreign lands.

A lawyer for a major oil company said U.S. laws, which often can conflict with foreign cultures, should not govern overseas in the absence of a clear congressional mandate.

The justices are expected to announce a ruling by July.

“Foreign employers are bound by our laws here,” said Paul Friedman, an attorney for Arabian American Oil Co. “Why shouldn’t we be bound by theirs when we are guests there?”

Solicitor General Kenneth W. Starr, the Administration’s chief courtroom lawyer, said the company’s approach would undermine Congress’ efforts to combat discrimination in the workplace.

“We should understand what is at stake,” he said. If the oil company prevails, “U.S. employers are free to discriminate overseas with regard to race, religion and gender.”

The company is referred to in the case as ARAMCO and was American-owned until nationalized recently by Saudi Arabia. It is now called Saudi ARAMCO.

Ali Boureslan of El Paso, a naturalized U.S. citizen and Lebanese native, said ARAMCO discriminated against him when he worked for the company in Saudi Arabia.

Boureslan, an engineer, said he was denied time off to celebrate a Muslim holiday and taunted about his heritage by a supervisor. After complaining, he said, his work ratings plummeted and he was fired in 1984.

About 5 million American citizens work for U.S. companies overseas.

During Wednesday’s hourlong argument session, Justice Antonin Scalia questioned whether the Administration’s interpretation of federal law could force U.S. employers overseas to violate foreign laws.