Jouanny v. Embassy of France in the United States
220 F. Supp. 3d 34
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Annie Jouanny, a U.S. citizen and long-time receptionist at the French Embassy in Washington, D.C., alleged age discrimination and retaliation under the ADEA after learning the Embassy planned to terminate her while retaining a younger coworker and later offering her a lower-paid security position.
- Jouanny filed an EEOC charge on October 25, 2014; the Embassy rescinded its termination notice and retained her for another year but gave the younger employee a more favorable administrative position.
- Jouanny filed suit in federal court on January 27, 2016, against the Embassy of France alleging age discrimination and retaliation.
- The Embassy moved to dismiss on multiple grounds, including insufficient service of process under Federal Rule 12(b)(5) and FSIA service requirements, failure to timely file, and failure to state a claim; it also sought summary judgment.
- The court found the sole dispositive issue was inadequate service under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) because Jouanny served France’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs rather than the Hague Convention–designated Central Authority (France’s Ministry of Justice), and strict compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a) is required.
- The court granted dismissal for lack of jurisdiction on service grounds but, following D.C. Circuit precedent, gave Jouanny 30 days to effect proper service under § 1608(a) instead of dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service on the Embassy complied with FSIA § 1608(a) | Jouanny contends service was proper under § 1608(a)(2) via the Hague Convention | Embassy argued service was improper because plaintiff sent documents to France’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs instead of the Central Authority (Ministry of Justice) | Held: Service was insufficient; plaintiff must strictly follow § 1608(a) and Hague procedures |
| Whether actual notice or counsel acceptance can substitute for strict compliance with § 1608(a) | Jouanny argued the Embassy had notice of the suit and counsel refused to accept service | Embassy argued FSIA requires strict procedural compliance; informal acceptance is not permitted | Held: Actual notice or counsel’s informal acceptance does not cure noncompliance; strict adherence required |
| Whether court should dismiss the complaint vs. permit additional time to serve | Jouanny sought leave to correct service defects | Embassy sought dismissal based on lack of proper service | Held: Court denied dismissal with prejudice and granted 30 days to effect proper service under § 1608(a) given a reasonable prospect of successful service |
| Whether court should reach Embassy’s other substantive or timeliness defenses | Jouanny implicitly argued case should proceed if service were adequate | Embassy argued multiple substantive and procedural defenses including timeliness and failure to state a claim | Held: Court did not reach other defenses due to lack of jurisdiction from defective service; Embassy may renew arguments after proper service |
Key Cases Cited
- Hilska v. Jones, 217 F.R.D. 16 (D.D.C. 2003) (plaintiff bears burden to prove proper service)
- Light v. Wolf, 816 F.2d 746 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (service must satisfy Rule 4 and applicable law)
- Transaero Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 30 F.3d 148 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (FSIA requires strict compliance with § 1608(a))
- Opati v. Republic of Sudan, 978 F. Supp. 2d 65 (D.D.C. 2013) (outlining § 1608(a) methods of service)
- Barot v. Embassy of the Republic of Zambia, 785 F.3d 26 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (dismissal inappropriate where reasonable prospect service can be obtained)
- Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1868) (court lacks power to proceed without jurisdiction)