Ahmed v. 2U

Background

Abdimajid M. Ahmed, a pro se plaintiff (self-represented litigant) who is an African-American man of Somali descent, sued his former employer, 2U, Inc., an educational technology company headquartered in Lanham, Maryland. Ahmed began working for 2U in June 2017 as a Student Success Advisor and received two promotions. He was selected to launch 2U's Harvard Business Analytics Program and served as interim manager for three months.

Ahmed alleges that after a management reorganization in March 2020 and the hiring of a new Senior Director, Amy Halter, 2U began treating him differently. He claims he was passed over for a promotion in favor of a less experienced white male, told by Halter to "aim lower," paid less than white subordinates, demoted in duties after returning from cancer-related medical leave in August 2021, denied a promised bonus after serving as Interim Senior Manager from March to May 2022, and denied a permanent promotion to Senior Manager in favor of a less qualified white woman, Rebecca Minasian.

After returning from a second leave period (June through October 2022), Ahmed alleges Halter told him he was being transferred to punish him for taking leave, stating she had "a hard time with people like [him] taking FMLA leave" and had explored ways to fire him. In February 2023, Ahmed requested a third leave period due to anxiety, insomnia, and chronic pain. On March 6, 2023, 2U's HR Business Partner told him the FMLA would not apply to this request and gave him 48 hours to resign or be terminated for job abandonment. Ahmed resigned on March 8, 2023, characterizing it as a constructive discharge under duress.

Ahmed filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on October 23, 2023. The EEOC dismissed the charge and issued a right-to-sue letter on December 6, 2024. Ahmed filed this lawsuit on April 3, 2025.

Claims

Ahmed originally brought eight counts but withdrew Counts VII (Constructive Discharge) and VIII (Evidence Preservation Concerns) during briefing. The remaining six counts alleged: - Count I: Discrimination based on race and national origin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) - Count II: Disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and MHRA - Counts III and IV: FMLA interference/entitlement and retaliation, respectively - Count V: Hostile work environment under Title VII, ADA, and MHRA - Count VI: Retaliation under Title VII, ADA, FMLA, and MHRA

2U moved to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim) or, alternatively, Rule 12(b)(3) (improper venue).

Title VII and ADA Claims — Dismissed With Prejudice as Time-Barred

Under Title VII and the ADA, a plaintiff must file suit within 90 days of receiving an EEOC right-to-sue letter. Ahmed's complaint stated he filed within 90 days of receiving the letter, but did not specify when he received it. 2U submitted data from the EEOC portal showing the agency emailed Ahmed on December 6, 2024, that the letter had been posted, and that Ahmed downloaded it less than an hour later. Ahmed objected that this portal data was improper extrinsic evidence, but the court found it was "necessarily embraced by the pleadings" because Ahmed himself had alleged timely filing.

With a receipt date of December 6, 2024, Ahmed's 90-day deadline was March 6, 2025. He filed on April 3, 2025 — nearly a month late. The court therefore dismissed all Title VII and ADA claims (parts of Counts I, II, V, and VI) with prejudice, meaning those claims cannot be refiled in federal court.

FMLA Claims — Dismissed Without Prejudice

The FMLA provides employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year under certain conditions. The general statute of limitations is two years from the last violation, extended to three years for willful violations. The Eighth Circuit recognizes three types of FMLA claims: (1) entitlement/interference claims (employer refuses leave), (2) retaliation claims (adverse action for opposing unlawful FMLA practices), and (3) discrimination claims (adverse action for exercising FMLA rights).

Entitlement/Interference (Count III)

The court found Ahmed failed to adequately allege FMLA eligibility for his February 2023 leave request. There are up to 20 weeks between June 11 and November 1, 2022, meaning Ahmed could have exhausted all 12 weeks of FMLA entitlement during that period, making him ineligible for further leave until June 2023. Ahmed also failed to adequately allege that 2U employed 50 or more employees within 75 miles of his worksite — a statutory eligibility requirement — because it was unclear where his worksite was: he was a remote employee for a Maryland-based company, yet his Workday profile appeared to show a St. Paul, Minnesota location. These claims were dismissed without prejudice.

FMLA Retaliation and Discrimination (Count IV)

The court examined alleged retaliatory acts in three time periods:

All FMLA claims were dismissed without prejudice.

State Law MHRA Claims — Dismissed Without Prejudice

The court's jurisdiction over the Minnesota Human Rights Act claims rested solely on supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) — meaning the federal court could hear them only because they were part of the same case as the federal claims. Because all federal claims were dismissed, the court exercised its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the MHRA claims and dismissed them without prejudice, allowing Ahmed to potentially pursue them in state court.

Withdrawn Counts

Counts VII and VIII, which Ahmed withdrew during briefing to promote "procedural efficiency," were dismissed as abandoned.

Disposition

2U's motion to dismiss was granted in its entirety. The complaint was dismissed in full: - Title VII and ADA claims (portions of Counts I, II, V, VI): dismissed with prejudice - FMLA claims (Counts III and IV): dismissed without prejudice - MHRA claims (portions of Counts I, II, V, VI): dismissed without prejudice - Constructive Discharge (Count VII) and Evidence Preservation (Count VIII): dismissed as abandoned