Baloun v. Kerry, Civil Action No. 2016-0111

Baloun, a Czech citizen and resident, worked as an engineer at the U.S. Embassy in Prague for ~4 years and was terminated on July 13, 2012.
He sued the U.S. Secretary of State pro se, alleging national-origin discrimination and retaliation under Title VII based on poor performance reviews and his termination.
The State Department moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing Title VII does not protect non‑U.S. citizens employed abroad.
The court relied on binding D.C. Circuit precedent holding Title VII does not apply extraterritorially to non‑citizens and thus that Baloun’s claims cannot proceed.
The court granted the motion to dismiss without resolving whether dismissal should be on jurisdictional (12(b)(1)) or merits‑failure (12(b)(6)) grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Title VII protects a non‑U.S. citizen employed abroad	Title VII claims available for discrimination and retaliation relating to his embassy employment	Title VII does not extend extraterritorially to non‑citizens employed outside the U.S.	Dismissed — Title VII does not apply to non‑citizens employed abroad

Shekoyan v. Sibley Int'l, 409 F.3d 414 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (holding Title VII does not extend extraterritorially to non‑U.S. citizens)
Licudine v. Winter, 603 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2009) (dismissing Title VII claim by non‑citizen employed overseas)
Alipio v. Winter, 631 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D.D.C. 2009) (concluding an alien to whom Title VII does not apply has failed to state a claim)
Rabe v. United Air Lines, Inc., 636 F.3d 866 (7th Cir. 2011) (contrasting view that extraterritoriality of Title VII to aliens goes to merits rather than jurisdiction)