Ahmed v. Wormuth

Background

Ehab Ahmed taught Hebrew at the Defense Language Institute for 14 years until his termination on June 7, 2021. The termination letter stated that the Hebrew department was closing. Ahmed alleged that he was born in Egypt, was the only African person in the department, was one of two religious people there, and was one of its oldest members. He also alleged that younger or less experienced colleagues received other positions, while he was interviewed for only one of the 11 positions for which he applied.

Ahmed sued Christine Wormuth, Secretary of the Department of the Army. He alleged discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, age, and association with religion, as well as retaliation for voicing concerns. The court understood the age claims as claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, even though Ahmed did not specifically cite that statute. The other discrimination claims were treated as claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Administrative exhaustion

The court explained that a federal employee generally must notify an equal-employment-opportunity counselor within 45 days of an alleged discriminatory act before bringing a Title VII claim in federal court. This requirement is an administrative claim-processing rule, not a limit on the court’s jurisdiction. The complaint alleged contact with an EEO official on September 3, 2021, but did not allege an earlier contact.

The court treated Ahmed’s allegations as involving separate acts—such as termination, failure to hire, and denial of transfer—not a hostile work environment. Because of that, Ahmed had to plead that he timely reported each challenged act, or facts supporting waiver, equitable tolling, or estoppel. The court held that the complaint did not adequately plead exhaustion for discriminatory acts occurring before July 20, 2021. It therefore granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss without prejudice as to those acts and granted Ahmed leave to amend. The court did not decide the effect of a July 2021 settlement agreement and noted that earlier acts might still be usable as background evidence for timely claims.

The court also examined the September 23, 2021 EEO complaint. It held that the age-discrimination allegations in the lawsuit were not sufficiently similar or reasonably related to that administrative complaint because the complaint did not mention Ahmed’s age, the ages of other employees, or facts suggesting age discrimination. The court therefore granted Wormuth’s Motion to Dismiss as to the age-discrimination claims and granted Ahmed leave to amend. The court identified possible additional facts that could support exhaustion, including facts about the September 3 contact, other EEO contacts, or an attempt to amend the administrative complaint.

Pleading deficiencies

The court granted Wormuth’s Motion to Dismiss the Title VII discrimination claims. It held that the complaint was too vague to determine whether the challenged adverse actions occurred within the relevant period and whether the allegations plausibly showed that Ahmed received worse treatment because of a protected characteristic. For example, Ahmed alleged that he was born in Egypt, that the decision-maker was from Lebanon, and that the decision-maker’s actions showed prejudice, but he did not explain what actions showed prejudice. The court granted leave to amend and recommended that Ahmed provide more detail about his qualifications, the positions, the decision-maker’s actions, and the treatment of comparable employees.

The court also granted Wormuth’s Motion to Dismiss the retaliation claim. The complaint alleged only that Ahmed was retaliated against for “voicing concerns.” It did not adequately identify the protected activity, the adverse actions, when those actions occurred, or facts linking the actions to the protected activity. The court granted leave to amend that claim as well.

Disposition

The court granted Wormuth’s motion to dismiss Ahmed’s claims and granted Ahmed leave to amend his complaint as to all claims. The order gave Ahmed 30 days from February 28, 2023, to file an amended complaint. The court did not reach the ultimate merits of whether Wormuth discriminated or retaliated against Ahmed.