Al’zaiem v. Mayorkas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MOHI’DEAN D. AL’ZAIEM, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 22-3804 (JEB) ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Mohi’Dean Al’Zaiem brings this action against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. He alleges that his supervisors subjected him to a hostile work environment and ultimately terminated him because of his race, color, national origin, religion, age, disability, and in retaliation for his prior protected activity. He also maintains that he was denied reasonable accommodations for multiple medical conditions on multiple occasions. Defendant now cites two principal grounds in seeking dismissal or summary judgment: a contract between the parties that included a release of certain claims acts as a partial bar, and Al’Zaiem failed to exhaust administrative remedies for a smattering of his claims. The Court delivers a split verdict here, agreeing with DHS in part but not entirely. I. Background As the present Motion does not concern the particulars of the alleged discrimination, the Court recounts those facts only as necessary. For that task, it relies on the facts as pled in the Amended Complaint, assuming them to be true. See Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1 1111, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2000). It also considers the additional facts set forth in the undisputed documents incorporated in the Complaint and attached to the Motion that are integral to the claim, as well as matters of which it may take judicial notice, without converting this into a motion for summary judgment. See EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial Sch., 117 F.3d 621, 624 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Pernice v. Bovim, No. 15-541, 2015 WL 5063378, at *3 (D.D.C. Aug. 26, 2015) (explaining courts may consider documents attached by defendant to motion to dismiss “if they are integral to its claim, they are referred to in the complaint, and their authenticity is undisputed”). On April 16, 2017, Al’Zaiem began his tenure with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services as an Immigration Services Officer in the Overland Park, Kansas, National Benefits Center. See ECF No. 14 (Amended Complaint), ¶¶ 23, 38. He transferred to the Potomac Service Center (PSC) on April 1, 2018, where he reports his troubles began. Id., ¶ 27. He was assured before the transfer that he had completed his probationary period at USCIS and would not have to meet any new-employee requirements for a second time at the PSC. Id., ¶ 38. When he arrived, however, the story had changed — despite his year of experience, he still had to submit a new application for flexible work arrangements and receive new employee training, and he was not eligible to receive overtime. Id. Al’Zaiem’s new supervisors at the PSC allegedly began harassing him by “falsely accus[ing] [him] of being late” and “subject[ing] [him] to increased scrutiny.” Id., ¶ 24. They also denied him training opportunities and “belittled, demeaned, and spoke[] …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals