Fortino v. Quasar Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
950 F.2d 389 (1991)

- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
Three American executives (American executives) (plaintiffs) worked for the Quasar Company (defendant), which was an unincorporated division of an American corporation that was wholly owned by the Japanese company Matsushita Electric Industrial Company (MEI). Quasar marketed products made by MEI. MEI sometimes assigned Japanese executives to Quasar on a temporary basis. Those executives were authorized to enter the United States under visas that authorized Japanese citizens working in executive roles to enter the country. The United States had created such visas pursuant to a treaty with Japan that authorized companies of the respective countries to hire executives based on citizenship (i.e., Japanese companies operating in America could hire Japanese executives to work in America). In 1985, Quasar suffered a large loss in revenue, which prompted MEI to send a Japanese executive to the United States to prevent such losses from happening again. The Japanese executive reorganized Quasar and cut the workforce in half during the process. The three American executives (who were not of Japanese origin) were terminated during the reorganization. No executives of Japanese origin were terminated during the reorganization; to the contrary, several were rotated back to Japan and received salary increases. The American executives sued Quasar for national-origin discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The matter was tried before a judge, who found for the American executives, and Quasar appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Posner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 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.