Khamis v. Wormuth

Background

Sinaa Khamis sued Christine E. Wormuth in her official capacity as Secretary of the Army, the Department of the Army, and Does 1-25. Khamis alleged that she worked as a civilian Arabic-language instructor at the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center beginning in 2008. She asserted that, after moving to Department C in July 2021, she experienced sexual harassment and other harassment connected to sex, religion, and national origin. She also alleged that she reported the conduct, that the response was inadequate, and that she was later demoted, assigned different duties, and terminated on March 24, 2022.

The operative complaint asserted five Title VII claims: sexual harassment; sex discrimination; religion discrimination; national-origin discrimination; and retaliation. Defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss for failure to state a claim and under Rule 12(e) for a more definite statement. Khamis opposed the motion and requested permission to amend again.

Court’s analysis and rulings

Doe defendants. The court dismissed the claims against all Doe defendants because the complaint did not provide specific allegations about them. The dismissal was with leave to amend. The court directed Khamis, if she repleaded claims against any Doe defendant, to identify that person by name or at least by role, position, specific acts, and other details supporting the claim.

Claims 1 and 2: sex discrimination and sexual harassment. The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss these claims for failure to state a claim. It held that Khamis sufficiently alleged that she reported the alleged harassment to supervisors, human resources, and the Chief of Staff, and that the employer’s response was ineffective. The court also found that the allegations, if clarified, plausibly described persistent conduct that could be sufficiently severe or pervasive to support a hostile-work-environment claim.

The court granted defendants’ motion for a more definite statement regarding the identities of the alleged harassers and the specific harassment incidents. Khamis had indicated that she was prepared to amend the complaint to provide that information.

Claims 3 and 4: religion and national-origin discrimination. The court found that the complaint did not plausibly allege severe or pervasive conduct based solely on religion or national origin. However, the court understood Khamis to be alleging discrimination based on a combination of sex, religion, and national origin—specifically, treatment of her as a woman who did not conform to traditional or conservative views of how a Sunni woman from Baghdad should dress or behave.

Accordingly, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss claims 3 and 4 to the extent they relied on that combined theory. It granted the motion to the extent those claims asserted standalone harassment or discrimination based only on religion or national origin. The court also granted the motion for a more definite statement and gave Khamis leave to clarify the claims and legal theories involving religion and national origin.

Claim 5: retaliation. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the retaliation claim. Although Khamis alleged that she reported harassment and then faced adverse employment actions, the complaint did not identify who made the decisions to demote or terminate her or allege that those decision-makers knew about her protected activity. The court therefore found that the complaint did not adequately allege a causal connection between her reports and the adverse actions. The court gave Khamis leave to amend this claim.

Administrative exhaustion. The court allowed Khamis to amend the complaint to provide facts showing compliance with Title VII’s administrative-exhaustion requirement, including whether she received a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Punitive and exemplary damages. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss Khamis’s request for punitive and exemplary damages with prejudice. Khamis did not oppose dismissal of that request and stated that she would remove the request against the Army in an amended complaint.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss and for a more definite statement as follows:

The court gave Khamis leave to amend claims 1 through 5 and required her to file a third amended complaint by February 18, 2025.