Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—D.D.C.: 56-year-old Muslim civil engineer’s suit against DDOT survives summary judgment, (Sep 26, 2025)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

Among the claims that will move forward is one based on a position for which she never applied because the employer changed the grade and added a prerequisite she could not satisfy.

A 56-year-old Egyptian Muslim woman employed by the District of Columbia Department of Transportation (“DDOT”) as a civil engineer, who sued her employer alleging discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, national origin, and age based on being denied a supervisory position for which she applied, now has the opportunity to take her claims before a jury. A D.C. federal court declined to grant summary judgment for the employer, determining that unexplained disparities in the interview scores she received, along with a lack of explanation as to why she was ineligible to reapply to a previously posted position, could support an inference of discrimination, particularly since the selected candidates were all younger and non-Muslim (Azzam v. District of Columbia, No. 19-cv-03365 (TSC) (D.D.C. Sept. 24, 2025)).

In this case, the plaintiff is a 56-year-old Egyptian Muslim woman employed by the District of Columbia Department of Transportation (“DDOT”) as a civil engineer at a position listed under Grade 13 of the employer’s grade system.

First and second jobs. In 2015, she applied for a Grade 14 supervisory position, and while she achieved the highest score under DDOT’s system, she was passed over in favor of a non-Muslim male candidate who lacked the required professional license. She filed a grievance, after which HR agreed the male hire was unqualified and assured the employee that the position would be reposted. However, DDOT never reposted the job at Grade 14 and instead, in 2018, posted it at Grade 15, requiring one year of Grade 14 experience—a requirement that the employee, still at Grade 13, could not meet. She did not apply for the higher-grade posting, and the job was filled by a non-Muslim male.

Third job. In 2019, the employee applied for one of four Grade 14 project manager positions and earned a high initial “eRecruit” score of 110, tying for the top of the applicant pool. However, after her interview, her combined score fell below the cutoff for second-round interviews. The four selected candidates were all younger and non-Muslim; one was male but declined, and the positions were ultimately filled by women under 40.

Subsequently, the employee filed suit alleging discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, national origin, and age. Some of her claims were dismissed previously and now the employer moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims.

Grade 15 job posting. Regarding the 2018 Grade 15 job posting, DDOT argued that because the employee never applied for the job, she could not claim discrimination. Ordinarily, Title VII plaintiffs must show they applied and were qualified for the position in order to be successful. However, the court emphasized that a viable cause of action exists where an employer’s actions effectively deny an employee the opportunity to apply.

In this case, the employee had repeatedly expressed interest in the 2015 position, and the employer assured her it would be reposted; instead, when it was posted, DDOT altered the posting to Grade 15 with a prerequisite that the employee could not satisfy. The court found this could support an inference of discrimination, especially given the history of the 2015 process, where the employee was most qualified but passed over in favor of an unqualified male.

While the 2015 claim was dismissed as untimely, its circumstances remained relevant to show pretext, the court noted. Importantly, DDOT failed to explain why the position was reposted at a higher grade after promising the employee an opportunity to reapply, and that silence, the court noted, “proved fatal.”

No substantive explanation. Regarding the 2019 project manager roles, DDOT maintained that the employee simply scored too low after her interview, and the highest scorers advanced, but the court rejected this as conclusive. The court noted that the employee had tied for the highest initial score and even outscored a male who was ultimately selected, yet she was excluded after the interview stage. DDOT did not provide a substantive explanation for her low interview score, merely noting that all candidates were asked the same questions. The court found that unexplained disparity could support an inference of discrimination, particularly since the selected candidates were all younger and non-Muslim.

Moreover, the fact that most final hires were women did not defeat the employee’s claims, because discrimination can exist even within the same protected class if based on other protected traits like religion, national origin, or age.

The case is No. 19-cv-03365 (TSC).

Judge: Chutkan, T.

Attorneys: George R. Doumar (Doumar Martin) for Amal Azzam. Amanda Torres, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, for District of Columbia.

Companies: District of Columbia

Cases: Discrimination ReligiousDiscrimination SexDiscrimination AgeDiscrimination NationalOrigin PublicEmployees DistrictofColumbiaNews