Ahmed v. Wormuth

Background

Ehab Ahmed brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging race discrimination, religion discrimination, and retaliation. Ahmed worked as an Associate Professor of Hebrew Language at the Defense Language Institute from 2007 through October 1, 2021. The claims remaining after earlier rulings concerned four positions:

- A Hebrew teaching position at Fort Eisenhower, Georgia; - An Assistant Dean of UAA position in the Chinese School; - A Levantine Team Leader position; and - An Egyptian testing project position.

Wormuth moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide a claim without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Fort Eisenhower Position

The court granted Wormuth’s motion as to Ahmed’s Title VII race and religion discrimination claim concerning the Fort Eisenhower Hebrew teaching position. The court found that Bella Kelly, who recommended another candidate, submitted sworn testimony that she did not know Ahmed existed or know his race or religion when she made the recommendation. Ahmed did not identify evidence contradicting that testimony. The court also concluded that, even assuming Ahmed could establish the initial requirements for a discrimination claim, he did not provide sufficiently specific evidence that Wormuth’s stated reason was a pretext for discrimination.

The court also granted Wormuth’s motion as to Ahmed’s Title VII retaliation claim concerning the Fort Eisenhower position. Kelly’s recommendation occurred on June 23, 2021, before Ahmed’s first documented contact with an equal-employment-opportunity counselor on July 13, 2021. The court considered Ahmed’s argument that he engaged in protected activity when he raised concerns about the department’s downsizing in December 2020, but found no evidence that Kelly knew about that activity or that it involved opposition to unlawful discrimination. The court further stated that the six- to seven-month gap would not, by itself, support an inference of retaliation.

Assistant Dean Position

The court denied Wormuth’s motion as to Ahmed’s Title VII race and religion discrimination claim concerning the Assistant Dean position. The applications were redacted and applicants were identified by numbers. Ahmed was Applicant 14, received the ninth-highest score, and was not among the eight applicants interviewed.

Wormuth presented declarations stating that the panel members did not know Applicant 14 was Ahmed and did not know his race, national origin, religion, or prior protected activity. Ahmed, however, presented evidence that the applications contained cultural or employment information that could have allowed panel members to infer applicants’ identities or backgrounds. The court found that this evidence could support a reasonable inference that one or more panel members knew of Ahmed’s protected status, so whether they had that knowledge should be decided by a jury.

Wormuth’s stated reason was that the panel interviewed only the eight highest-scoring applicants and Ahmed ranked ninth. The court considered that a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, but found a triable factual dispute about pretext because Ahmed’s application may have revealed his background and because the scores near the cutoff were close. The court therefore found summary judgment improper on this discrimination claim.

The court granted Wormuth’s motion as to Ahmed’s Title VII retaliation claim concerning the Assistant Dean position. The panel members stated that they did not know Applicant 14 had previously engaged in protected activity, and Ahmed presented no evidence undermining that testimony. Without evidence that the decisionmakers knew of his protected activity, Ahmed could not establish the required causal connection for retaliation.

Levantine Team Leader Position

The court granted Wormuth’s motion as to Ahmed’s Title VII retaliation claim concerning the Levantine Team Leader position. The selection-panel members and the dean who selected Siba Ammari stated that they were unaware of Ahmed’s prior protected activity. Ahmed offered only speculative assertions that the activity may have been known within the department, which the court found insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact.

The court also found that Wormuth had offered a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the selection: the panel considered Ammari more qualified, including because she was more familiar with the Levantine curriculum and was a certified Levantine tester. The court rejected Ahmed’s arguments that the process used inconsistent standards or was unfairly structured, finding no evidence that the selection criteria changed during the process or that the same interview procedures were not applied to the other candidates. The court also noted Ahmed’s testimony that he was not saying he was the most qualified candidate.

Egyptian Testing Project Position

The court granted Wormuth’s motion as to Ahmed’s Title VII retaliation claim concerning the Egyptian testing project position. Dr. Hany Amin stated that no such position existed; he believed the department needed one, but the position first had to be funded. The record showed that DLI management reported that no funding was available, and there was no evidence of a public posting, an approved position waiting to be filled, or another person later being hired for the role.

The court held that an employer’s failure to create and fund a new position could not support this retaliation claim. It also found that the evidence Ahmed offered about Amin’s views did not establish that the position existed or create a triable dispute about Wormuth’s explanation that the role was never approved or funded and that the Egyptian Department was being eliminated.

Other Arguments and Disposition

The court declined to consider Ahmed’s apparent attempt to raise a retaliatory hostile-work-environment claim because the operative complaint alleged discrete employment actions rather than a hostile work environment. The court also stated that claims based on conduct before July 20, 2021 and claims concerning an alleged breach of the July 2021 settlement agreement had already been rejected in earlier rulings and were not properly before the court on this motion.

The court granted in part and denied in part Wormuth’s motion for summary judgment. It granted the motion on the Fort Eisenhower discrimination and retaliation claims, the Assistant Dean retaliation claim, the Levantine Team Leader retaliation claim, and the Egyptian testing project retaliation claim. It denied the motion on Ahmed’s Title VII discrimination claim concerning the Assistant Dean position. The parties were referred to Judge Kim for a further settlement conference, and the court scheduled a further case management conference.