In Butters v.Vance International,Inc.,Vance International was hired to provide security for the Saudi royal family while they were in California.Butters was employed by Vance International as a security officer.She was assigned to the Saudi detail and worked occasionally as an acting supervisor in a security command post.Vance International recommended to the Saudis that Butters be promoted to a full rotation in the command post.The Saudis rejected this recommendation on their belief that it was against Islamic law to have a woman in the command post.Butters sued over gender discrimination for the loss of promotion.Vance International argued that it was immune under the Federal Sovereign Immunities Act because it was carrying out the orders of a foreign government.The court found that Vance International

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

A) The court held that Vance was immune because its client, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, was responsible for the lack of promotion. The action by the Saudis was not exempt from the FSIA because it was not commercial activity.
A) The court held that Vance was immune because its client, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, was responsible for the lack of promotion. The action by the Saudis was not exempt from the FSIA because it was not commercial activity.
B) The court held that Vance was immune because its client, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, was responsible for the lack of promotion. The action by the Saudis was not exempt from the FSIA because it was not commercial activity.
C) The court held that Vance was immune because its client, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, was responsible for the lack of promotion. The action by the Saudis was not exempt from the FSIA because it was not commercial activity.

In Butters V