Alhayoti v. Blinken

Background

Asam Alhayoti, who is a citizen of both the United States and Yemen, worked for the U.S. Department of State at the U.S. Embassy in Sana’a, Yemen. He was hired as a Foreign Service National Investigator in the local-employee category and was paid the local prevailing wage. Because he was also a U.S. citizen, the Foreign Service Act required that he receive at least the federal minimum wage, but he was not placed in the direct-hire employee category, which generally received higher pay.

After the Embassy suspended operations in February 2015, Alhayoti returned to the United States but continued working for the Department by communicating with contacts in Yemen. He was placed on inactive status, declined a temporary assignment in Saudi Arabia, and later sought better pay and benefits. His employment ended in July 2019 after he received a reduction-in-force notice.

Alhayoti alleged that American employees discriminated against Yemenis and that the Department treated him less favorably because of his Yemeni descent and because he was kept in the local-employee category. He brought Title VII claims under both disparate-treatment and disparate-impact theories. The government moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Alhayoti’s disparate-treatment theory was based primarily on his belief that his U.S. citizenship entitled him to higher pay and better benefits than other local employees. Title VII protects against employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, but not citizenship or alienage. Citizenship can support a Title VII claim when it is used as a cover for discrimination based on race or national origin, but the court found that Alhayoti had not alleged facts plausibly showing that here.

The court noted that Alhayoti did not allege that the Department treated non-Yemeni local employees better or directed derogatory comments at him. It also found that the alleged offensive comments about Yemeni people were not themselves materially adverse employment actions and that the complaint suggested his treatment changed because of operational concerns after the failed coup. The court further observed that the Department had recognized his performance and helped him find part-time consulting work.

The court also rejected the disparate-impact theory. A disparate-impact claim challenges a facially neutral employment practice that disproportionately harms a protected group, even without proof of discriminatory intent. The court found that Alhayoti had not alleged facts showing that the distinction between local employees and direct hires disproportionately affected a protected group. It also held that comparing pay for employees working at different diplomatic facilities, in different countries, under different conditions, and potentially performing different tasks was not a valid comparison of similarly situated employees.

Disposition

The court granted the government’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint without leave to amend because Alhayoti had already had an opportunity to correct the deficiencies identified in an earlier order. The introduction states that, because this was his fourth complaint, the dismissal was with prejudice. The order resolved ECF No. 62.