Weinstock v. Asian Development Bank

Mr. Weinstock, an employee in the Manila Office of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court of the Columbia District against ADB. The appellant claimed that ADB had helped the US authorities to remove his minor daughter, who was residing in the United States with her mother, from his custody. He also claimed that he had suffered discrimination at work because of his family history, culminating in ADB’s refusal to promote him.

Before the District Court, the respondent organization plead its immunity from the jurisdiction of United States courts pursuant to the International Organization Immunity Act (IOIA). Indeed, ADB is an international organization created by an international agreement ratified by the United States. By executive order, ADB has been qualified as an international organization enjoying in the United States the immunities recognized under the IOIA. However, the applicant argued that the immunity granted to the respondent organization conflicted with its constitutional right to a judicial remedy.

The District Court dismissed the case, declaring that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s claims. As it underlined, the agreement establishing ADB accords immunity from legal process, “except in cases arising out of or in connection with the exercise of its powers to borrow money, to guarantee obligations, or to buy and sell or underwrite the sale of securities”. According to the Court, the instant case is an employment dispute from which the respondent is immune under the Agreement.

Furthermore, the District Court held that the recognition of ADB’s immunity by national courts, pursuant to the IOIA, did not give rise to an unconstitutional restriction of the applicant right to a remedy.