UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RASHA MOHAMMAD, and All Persons No. 20-56255 Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-02513- v. MWF-MAA GENERAL CONSULATE OF THE STATE OF KUWAIT IN LOS ANGELES, AKA OPINION The General Consulate of the State of Kuwait, AKA The Nation of Kuwait, AKA The Royal Consulate of the State of Kuwait, The State of Kuwait, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 10, 2022 * Pasadena, California

Filed March 17, 2022

* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 MOHAMMAD V. GEN. CONSULATE OF KUWAIT Before: Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges, and Frederic Block, ** District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Callahan

SUMMARY ***

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

The panel affirmed the district court’s order denying the motion of the State of Kuwait’s Consulate in Los Angeles to dismiss an employment discrimination action based on sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

The panel affirmed the district court’s holding that the commercial activity exception to the FSIA applied. The panel reaffirmed the holding of Holden v. Canadian Consulate, 92 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 1996), that the “employment of diplomatic, civil service or military personnel is governmental,” and clarified that the employment of other personnel is commercial unless the foreign state shows that the employee’s duties included “powers peculiar to sovereigns.” The panel held that the district court properly exercised its discretion in finding that plaintiff, who was employed as an administrative assistant

** The Honorable Frederic Block, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. *** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. MOHAMMAD V. GEN. CONSULATE OF KUWAIT 3 by the Consulate, was not a civil servant and that her duties did not include “powers peculiar to sovereigns.”

COUNSEL Nick S. Pujji and Carol Your, Dentons US LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Defendants-Appellants. Richard L. Knickerbocker, Knickerbocker Law Firm, Santa Monica, California, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

OPINION CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge:

Rasha Mohammad (“Plaintiff”) was employed as an administrative assistant by the State of Kuwait’s Consulate in Los Angeles (the “Consulate”). She filed suit alleging that she had been constructively terminated due to discrimination based on her religion, gender, and national origin. She also alleged other violations of California’s employment laws. The Consulate moved to dismiss the action based inter alia on sovereign immunity. The district court denied the motion, finding that it had jurisdiction under the commercial activity exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq. The Consulate appeals, arguing that Plaintiff was part of its civil service and that her duties included “powers peculiar to sovereigns.” See Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 360 (1993) (quoting Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607, 614 (1992)). We affirm because the Consulate has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in finding that Plaintiff was not a civil servant and that her duties as an 4 MOHA