Japan Airlines (JAL) is a Japanese air carrier based in Tokyo, with offices in California and Hawaii. The plaintiffs were employed by a Hawaiian company that contracted to perform services for JAL flights. They alleged that JAL had required a seriously ill pilot to fly, in violation of aviation laws. After expressing their concerns to a JAL official and to aviation regulators, they claimed they experienced harassment from superiors, including required psychiatric evaluations, unsatisfactory evaluations, and termination. They sued in federal court seeking recovery for violation of California's whistle-blower protection statute and wrongful termination. The court dismissed the claims on the basis that the state statute had been preempted by the 1953 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation (FCN) between the United States and Japan. The plaintiffs appealed.
1. What was the purpose of article VIII(1) of the FCN treaty? In what way would this give them greater control of their U.S. operations?
2. What was the basis of the court's ruling? Does the California whistle-blower protection statute "interfere with the employer's ability to hire their fellow citizens"?
3. In citing MacNamara v. Korean Airlines, the court refers to the difference between "citizenship" and "national origin." What is the difference, and why was that important here?