Brzak v. The United Nations, et al.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
597 F.3d 107 (2010)
- Written by Whitney Kamerzel , JD
Facts
Cynthia Brzak and Nasr Ishak (plaintiffs) worked for Ruud Lubbers (defendant), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva. Brzak alleged that she was sexually harassed by Lubbers while they were working together. Brzak claimed that even though she made a complaint with Ishak’s help and Lubbers was supposed to be disciplined, Lubbers was exonerated and retaliated against Brzak and Ishak by negatively influencing work assignments and holding back promotions. Brzak and Ishak sued Lubbers and the United Nations in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of federal law. The Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (CPIUN) was signed by the United States and provided the United Nations and its employees with absolute immunity from suit. The treaty’s terms stated that it was effective upon ratification. During the treaty’s negotiation and after the treaty entered into force, the United States expressed its belief that the treaty was self-executing. The United Nations moved to dismiss the claims due to this diplomatic immunity, and the district court granted the motion. Brzak and Ishak appealed, arguing that the treaty should not be enforced by United States courts because it was not self-executing.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Parker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.