Nakhid v. American University
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
2021 WL 4169355 (2021)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
American University (American) (defendant), a private university in Washington, DC, sought a new head coach for its men’s soccer team. Approximately 100 people applied. Eight applicants received phone interviews, five received follow-up Skype interviews, and two received in-person interviews. American hired Zach Samol, who had collegiate coaching experience at institutions similar to American. David Nakhid (plaintiff), a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago living in Lebanon, was one of the rejected candidates who never received an interview. Nakhid had played for American’s soccer team in the 1980s before playing professionally in the United States and abroad. After his playing career, Nakhid began coaching professional teams in Lebanon and opened a training academy for young players. He never coached at a United States college. When he was not considered for the American position, Nakhid sued American, alleging discrimination based on race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. American moved for summary judgment, arguing that neither statute provided protection to a noncitizen living outside the United States. The district court considered the motion.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mehta, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 907,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 996 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.
