Background
Farah Naz, a Muslim woman of Pakistani origin, worked as an economist at the Department of Energy from 2017 until her termination in 2021. Proceeding pro se, she sued under Title VII, alleging discrimination based on race, gender, sex, religion, and national origin, and alleging retaliation tied to her testimony supporting a coworker’s Equal Employment Opportunity complaint and to her own Equal Employment Opportunity complaints. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit reviewed whether the dismissal properly accounted for allegations in Naz’s filings, including allegations made in her opposition to the motion to dismiss.
The court’s reasoning
The court explained that dismissal is reviewed de novo and that a pro se plaintiff’s filings must be construed liberally. Under circuit precedent, when deciding whether a pro se plaintiff has stated a claim, courts generally may consider supplemental material, including factual allegations in an opposition to a motion to dismiss. Applying that rule, the panel concluded the district court appeared not to account for an allegation in Naz’s opposition that supervisor Peter Gross, when responding to her Ramadan-related scheduling request, said the Department was a workplace, not a religious institution, and that he did not believe in Islamic religious extremism. The panel held that this allegation, credited at the pleading stage, was relevant to Naz’s religion-based discrimination claims and could affect the analysis of her discriminatory termination and non-promotion theories. The court therefore vacated dismissal of the discrimination claims and remanded so the district court could consider the allegation in the first instance or explain why it should be disregarded, including for procedural reasons if appropriate. The panel separately affirmed dismissal of the retaliation claim because the allegation about Gross’s remark did not undermine the district court’s causation analysis on retaliation, which the court found persuasive.
Under our precedents, a court reviewing a pro se plaintiff’s lawsuit generally must consider filings beyond just the complaint when deciding whether to dismiss the action.
The dissent
Rather than inject that contention into this appeal, I would instead apply ordinary party-presentation principles, which compel an affirmance.
Judge Katsas
What it means going forward
The case returns to the district court for renewed consideration of Naz’s discrimination claims, with attention to whether the allegation in her opposition about Gross’s response to her Ramadan accommodation request should be considered and whether it changes the pleading analysis. The retaliation claim remains dismissed.