Khwaja v. Jobs to Move America

Background

Omer Waqas Khwaja brought this employment-discrimination case after he was fired following an angry outburst at work. He alleged that his employer discriminated against him because he is a man and because of his race, and retaliated against him by terminating him after he complained about the treatment. After discovery ended, Defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to enter judgment without a trial when the evidence does not show a genuine dispute requiring a trial. Defendants also moved for sanctions.

Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron recommended granting Defendants’ summary-judgment motion in full and denying the sanctions motion. Judge Aaron concluded that Khwaja had not rebutted Defendants’ legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating him, had not shown discriminatory intent for his other alleged adverse actions, and had not rebutted Defendants’ legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for those actions. Judge Aaron also recommended denying sanctions despite Khwaja’s missed court deadlines.

Objections and Analysis

Khwaja’s objections were due November 7, 2022, because the original fourteen-day deadline fell on a Saturday. He filed them November 8. The court found the objections untimely but exercised its discretion to consider them because they were only one day late. The court noted that Khwaja gave no reason for the delay, did not request an extension, and was an attorney representing himself, so he was not entitled to special leniency.

The court rejected the objections on the merits. It agreed that one time stamp in the recommendation was wrong, sustaining that objection and correcting the time from “8:37 a.m.” to “1:02 p.m.” The court found that the error did not affect the analysis. It also rejected Khwaja’s argument that he disputed having an angry outburst, noting that he acknowledged an emotional outburst and disputed only whether he had been provoked.

The court separately reviewed Khwaja’s arguments about alleged retaliation. It agreed with Judge Aaron that Khwaja had not presented evidence establishing all the elements of a retaliation claim under Title VII, the federal workplace-discrimination law at issue. The court agreed that several complaints—including objections to an article’s listed authorship, unspecified complaints about work responsibilities, leave, and compensation, and advocacy for more sexual-harassment training—did not qualify as protected activity under Title VII. It also agreed that, even if Khwaja had established an initial retaliation case, he had not shown that retaliation was the reason for his termination.

Disposition

The court conducted a full fresh review of the report and recommendation, adopted it essentially in full, and made only the time-stamp correction. It granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, adopted the recommendation that the sanctions motion be denied, directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment, and closed the case.