that "[AIG executives] Cassano and Jones agreed with Ofori's impending temporary relocation to South Africa) (emphasis added). The facts alleged in the complaint thus indicate that the decision to send Ofori abroad was made while he was "within the jurisdiction of the United States.” Accordingly, we need not decide here whether alleged discrimination that occurs while a plaintiff who resides and works in the United States happens to be traveling abroad can support a claim under Section 1981. Cf. Torrico, 213 F.Supp.2d at 403 ("[It] appears obvious in the case of a two-week business trip abroad ... that the employee's place of employment is the United States and that an employer cannot evade the applica tion of the antidiscrimination laws.”); de Laz-zari Barbosa, 2002 WL 32348281, at *7 (<HOLDING>) (quotation marks
holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision holding that the key factor in determining the applicability of section 1981 to an employee who spends time abroad is the relevant work station holding that the passage of time was a relevant factor when determining custody issues holding that a relevant factor to consider in determining the applicability of the fortress theory is whether the type of firearm found in that case an automatic assault rifle is one that is commonly used by drug dealers holding that the source of the federal funds was not a relevant factor in determining the number of violations