Ahmed v. Wormuth

Background

Ahmed worked as a Hebrew-language teacher and later associate professor at the Defense Language Institute. After the Hebrew Department was scheduled to close, Ahmed alleged that he was not transferred or selected for other positions despite his experience, qualifications, and successful Arabic-language testing. He alleged that other employees received positions instead, including two secular Caucasian employees whom he described as similarly situated or less experienced.

Ahmed alleged discrimination based on race, national origin, religion, and age, as well as retaliation for complaining about discrimination. He contacted an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) counselor in July 2021 and entered into a settlement agreement on July 16, 2021. He later complained that the agreement was not being followed and made additional EEO contacts and complaints in September 2021.

The court had previously dismissed Ahmed’s claims and allowed him to amend. In his amended complaint, Ahmed asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for race, national-origin, and religious discrimination and retaliation, plus an age-discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Wormuth moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Administrative exhaustion and timing

The court held that Ahmed had not adequately alleged that he completed the required administrative process for discrimination claims based on conduct before July 20, 2021. Ahmed’s July 2021 discrimination complaint had been resolved through the settlement agreement, and he did not allege that he had asked to reinstate the underlying discrimination complaint and complete the administrative process. The later administrative proceedings concerned alleged noncompliance with the settlement agreement, not exhaustion of the underlying discrimination claims.

The court also stated that the 45-day deadline for contacting an EEO counselor generally limited the claims to conduct occurring on or after July 20, 2021, given the September 3, 2021 EEO contact. Ahmed did not allege facts supporting equitable tolling, waiver, or estoppel. The court therefore granted dismissal of the claims based on conduct before July 20, 2021 and denied leave to amend those claims.

The court separately held that Ahmed’s September 2021 EEO complaint did not raise age discrimination and was not sufficiently related to his Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim. The court granted dismissal of the age claim in full and denied leave to amend it.

Title VII discrimination claims

The court found that Ahmed’s allegations concerning two August 2021 job placements were sufficient at the pleading stage to support race and religious discrimination claims. Ahmed alleged that he was qualified, that he was not selected or transferred, and that secular Caucasian employees who were similarly situated or less experienced received the positions. The court denied dismissal of the race and religion claims as to those two job placements.

For the remaining alleged failures to promote or transfer, the court found that Ahmed had not pleaded enough facts to plausibly connect the decisions to his race or religion. The court therefore granted dismissal of the remaining race and religion allegations and denied leave to amend those claims.

The court granted dismissal of the national-origin claim. Although Ahmed alleged that he was Egyptian and that one decision-maker was Lebanese, the court found no additional facts plausibly suggesting that the employment decisions were based on national origin. The court denied leave to amend that claim.

Retaliation claim

The court denied dismissal of Ahmed’s retaliation claim to the extent it was based on his July 13, 2021 and September 3, 2021 EEO complaints and his complaints to Mr. Collins on August 13, August 20, and August 26, 2021. The court found that these complaints could qualify as protected activity because Ahmed alleged that he was opposing discrimination. The court also found that his alleged failures to receive promotions or transfers occurred close enough in time to support a plausible retaliation claim at this stage.

The court granted dismissal to the extent Ahmed relied on other activity as protected conduct. But because the allegations concerning an August 30, 2021 meeting were unclear and could show that Ahmed complained about discrimination, the court granted leave to amend the retaliation claim regarding that meeting.

Other relief and disposition

The court granted the parties’ requests for judicial notice to the extent described in the opinion. It also struck Ahmed’s request for punitive damages because such damages are unavailable against the government under Title VII.

The court’s final rulings were: dismissal of claims based on conduct before July 20, 2021; dismissal of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim; dismissal in part and denial in part of the race-discrimination claim; dismissal in part and denial in part of the religious-discrimination claim; dismissal of the national-origin claim; dismissal in part and denial in part of the retaliation claim; and striking of the request for punitive damages. The court granted Ahmed leave to amend the retaliation claim and allowed 30 days from the order’s date to file the amended complaint.