1. Why did the EEOC file a complaint against NCGA for a position Reyes-Gaona was applying for in Mexico? 

2. Could American firms avoid the ADEA by conducting the hiring process in Mexico? 

3. What was the court’s reasoning to deny the EEOC complaint? How did legal presumptions factor into its decision?

Plaintiff Luis Reyes-Gaona was a Mexican national over the age of 40. Defendant North Carolina Growers Association (NCGA) was an American corporation that assisted agricultural businesses in North Carolina in securing farm labor through a legal federal program. Defendant Del-Al was an agent of NCGA that recruited workers for NCGA and its members. Reyes-Gaona went to a Del-Al office in Mexico and asked to be placed on a list of workers seeking employment in North Carolina. Del-Al told Reyes-Gaona that NCGA would not accept a worker over 40 years old unless that person had worked for NCGA before. With the support of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Reyes-Gaona filed suit against NCGA and Del-Al, alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. 

This case requires us to decide whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) covers foreign nationals who apply in foreign countries for jobs in the United States. We hold that the Act does not cover such persons… . Plaintiff is a foreign national who applied in a foreign country for work in the United States. Accordingly, we begin, as we must, by acknowledging the “longstanding principle of American law ‘that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.’” … This interpretive canon is an especially important one as it “serves to protect against unintended clashes between our laws and those of other nations which could result in international discord.” … Thus, the presumption against extraterritorial application of a federal statute can be overcome only if there is an “affirmative intention of the Congress clearly expressed.” … Since this determination is necessarily “a matter of statutory construction,” we begin with the text of the ADEA itself. The ADEA makes it unlawful “for an employer” to “fail or refuse to hire” or “otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age.” The term “employer” means any company “engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more employees” and includes the agents of such companies … . The term “employee” means “an individual employed by any employer,” and “includes any individual who is a citizen of the United States employed by an employer in a workplace in a foreign country.” … Prior to 1984, the ADEA did not contain the language regarding U.S. citizens employed in foreign workplaces. To the contrary, [the ADEA] adopted language from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) excluding from coverage any individual “ whose services during the workweek are performed in a workplace within a foreign country … .” 

Decision. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Mr. ReyesGaona’s suit.