King v. Malone

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding no domestic application of Section 806 where the plaintiff was a U.S. citizen, and the alleged fraud was perpetrated by the U.S. parent company’s employees
• finding no domestic application where the plaintiff’s employer was a foreign subsidiary of a U.S. company and his “employment agreement [was] governed by the laws of a [foreign nation]”
• “Where the text is not clear, we turn next to assessing whether any indication of congressional intent overcomes the presumption against extraterritoriality.” (emphasis added)
• the fact that “corporate decisionmakers in the United States directed the retaliation campaign against [the plaintiff]” “neither change[s] the overseas locus of [the plaintiff]’s employment nor make[s] the conduct domestic” (citation omitted)
• “Congress’s silence on Section 806’s scope—even as it amended the provision and provided for extraterritoriality elsewhere in the same statute—weighs strongly against a finding that Congress intended to provide for the overseas application of Section 806.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).