El-Hadad was an accountant and citizen of Egypt working for the government of the United Arab Emirates embassy in Washington, where he was an auditor and supervising accountant in the cultural attaché’s office. In 1994, he was promoted and commended for his work. In 1995, his employment was wrongfully terminated. El-Hadad sued the U.A.E. and its Washington embassy for breach of his employment contract and defamation. The defendants claimed that El-Hadad was a government “civil servant” and thus they were immune from suit under the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. El-Hadad had supervised eight other accountants. He did not have full civil servant benefits common to other U.A.E. governmental employees. He was not involved in policy-making. Was his employment “commercial” or “governmental?” Was he a “civil servant” or a privately contracted employee? Does the definition of “civil service” under U.A.E. law matter? Does it matter that he exercised the “powers that can also be exercised by private citizens, as distinct from those powers peculiar to sovereigns?” What else would you like to know about his job functions? For whom do you think judgment was issued was and why? El-Hadad v. United Arab Emirates, WL 2141943 (C.A.D.C., 2007).