Naseri v. Regas

Background

Plaintiff Zahir Naseri, who is Afghan-American and Muslim, was a probationary employee of the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) from April 9, 2023 until his termination on June 16, 2023. He alleges he disclosed medical conditions — including diabetes, anxiety-related disorders, depression, insomnia, and panic-related symptoms — that substantially limited major life activities such as sleep, concentration, and stress regulation.

Naseri alleges the following sequence of events: On April 13, 2023, he requested reasonable accommodations (telework and schedule flexibility) with medical documentation from Supervisors Michelle Daniels and Jacqueline Peters; those requests were denied without a good-faith interactive process. A similarly situated coworker outside his protected classes was approved for full-time telework. Supervisor Daniels allegedly observed he was "a Middle Eastern Muslim" and threatened him by saying "I will f**k your probationary period." Similar statements were allegedly made the following day.

On May 14, 2023, Naseri informed his supervisors of his intent to pursue equal employment opportunity (EEO) protections. On May 15, 2023, he initiated contact with GSA's EEO office. He alleges subsequent retaliation including increased scrutiny, restrictions on assignments, exclusion from project management meetings, denial of a renewed accommodation request on June 8, 2023, and denial of overtime on June 13, 2023. On June 16, 2023 — one day after he participated in an EEO and American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) interview — GSA terminated his probationary employment.

The court had previously dismissed Naseri's initial complaint with leave to amend on May 11, 2026. He filed a first amended complaint (FAC) on May 18, 2026, asserting four claims: (1) Retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; (2) Hostile Work Environment under Title VII; (3) Disparate Treatment under Title VII (race, color, national origin, religion); and (4) Failure to Accommodate/Disability Discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act.

Legal Standard

The court applied the standard for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) — the rule allowing a defendant to seek dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The court must accept all factual allegations as true and may dismiss only where there is no cognizable legal theory or insufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief, per Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).

Analysis by Claim

Count 1: Retaliation (Title VII) — Motion Denied

To state a Title VII retaliation claim, a plaintiff must allege: (1) engagement in a protected activity; (2) a subsequent adverse employment action; and (3) a causal link between the two.

Defendant raised three arguments for dismissal, all rejected by the court. First, Defendant argued it was unclear whether Naseri's complaints actually concerned discrimination or harassment. The court found this unpersuasive because the FAC clearly alleged EEO activity related to workplace treatment and accommodation issues. Second, Defendant argued insufficient causal connection between the May 14–15, 2023 EEO activity and subsequent adverse actions. The court found that temporal proximity — the closeness in time between protected activity and adverse actions — is sufficient at the pleading stage to support a causal inference. Third, Defendant argued Naseri failed to allege the EEO complaint was filed before his termination. The court noted that Naseri alleged he participated in an EEO interview the day before his termination, which is sufficient at the pleading stage.

The motion to dismiss was denied as to Count 1.

Count 2: Hostile Work Environment (Title VII) — Dismissed With Prejudice

A hostile work environment claim requires allegations that: (1) the plaintiff was subjected to verbal or physical conduct based on a protected class; (2) the conduct was unwelcome; and (3) the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter employment conditions and create an abusive work environment. Isolated or trivial incidents are insufficient; the claim must be based on repeated or cumulative non-discrete acts.

The court found the FAC inadequate on this claim. The only specific harassing act identified in the complaint was Supervisor Daniels observing that Naseri was "a Middle Eastern Muslim" in the context of threatening his probationary period. The court held that one or two derogatory statements — even combined with a vague allegation that conduct was not isolated — is not enough to state a hostile work environment claim.

At the hearing, Naseri described additional conduct: Daniels expressed surprise he was from Afghanistan (thinking he was from Iran), described Afghanistan as "war torn" and used a profanity about it, called him "kid" instead of by name, sent curt emails, excluded him from weekly project manager meetings, and removed projects from him. The court found that even considering these additional allegations, they did not rise to the level required for a hostile work environment claim based on national origin or religion. The court characterized the FAC as attempting to recast employment decisions Naseri disagreed with as a hostile work environment, which is legally insufficient.

The hostile work environment claim was dismissed with prejudice (meaning it cannot be refiled) because the court found any further amendment would be futile.

Count 3: Disparate Treatment (Title VII) — Motion Denied

To state a disparate treatment claim, a plaintiff must allege membership in a protected class, qualification for the position, an adverse employment decision, and less favorable treatment than similarly situated persons outside the protected class. At the pleading stage, a plaintiff must allege either direct evidence of discrimination or circumstantial evidence — such as a comparator treated more favorably.

Defendant argued Naseri failed to allege specific facts about comparators. The court disagreed, finding that Naseri's allegation that a similarly situated employee who did not share his protected characteristics was approved for full-time telework while Naseri was denied constitutes sufficient circumstantial evidence at the pleading stage. The court noted that whether this person is truly a valid comparator is a question better resolved at summary judgment after discovery.

The motion to dismiss was denied as to Count 3.

Count 4: Failure to Accommodate (Rehabilitation Act) — Motion Denied

To establish a prima facie failure-to-accommodate claim under the Rehabilitation Act (which applies to federal employees), a plaintiff must show: (1) a disability; (2) qualification for employment with or without reasonable accommodation; and (3) refusal to reasonably accommodate.

Defendant argued Naseri failed to adequately allege a cognizable disability. The court disagreed, finding that the FAC adequately alleged: specific medical conditions (diabetes, anxiety-related disorders, depression, insomnia, panic-related symptoms, stress-related conditions) that substantially limited major life activities (sleep, concentration, endocrine function, stress regulation); ability to perform essential job functions with accommodation; specific accommodation requests (telework and schedule flexibility) made on April 13–14, 2023 and June 8, 2023; medical documentation provided to supervisors; and denial of accommodations without good-faith engagement in the interactive process. The court found these allegations corrected the deficiencies identified in the original complaint.

The motion to dismiss was denied as to Count 4.

Additional Order: EEO Complaint Exhibit

The court had previously ordered Naseri to attach a copy of his June 16, 2023 EEO complaint as an exhibit to any amended complaint. Naseri explained at the hearing that he had been unable to locate it but recently found a hard copy. The court ordered Naseri to file an errata (a correction filing) to the FAC attaching the EEO complaint as Exhibit B within 14 days of this order.

Disposition

The motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The hostile work environment claim (Count 2) was dismissed with prejudice. Counts 1, 3, and 4 survive and will proceed to further litigation. Defendant must file an answer within 21 days. The initial case management conference was continued from September 15, 2026 to October 13, 2026, with a joint case management statement due on or before October 6, 2026.