Muslim College Instructor’s First Amendment Retaliation / Title VII Claim Can Go Forward

From Judge Donald Middlebrooks (S.D. Fla.) in Ahmed v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. for Indian River State Coll., decided June 17 but just posted on Westlaw (appeal pending):

According to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff Syed Ammar Ahmed … is a practicing Muslim of Pakistani descent who served as an adjunct instructor at IRSC from 2019 until his termination on March 1, 2024. IRSC informed Plaintiff that he was being terminated based on a purported “security alert” indicating that he appeared on an “FDLE Homeland Security database” for “terrorist threats.” Plaintiff alleges that no such database exists and that the allegation was false. IRSC’s Chief of Campus Safety directed Plaintiff to a 2020 article by Joe Kaufman accusing Plaintiff of being an “Islamist,” “racist,” and “socialist,” and referencing Facebook posts Plaintiff made as a minor between 2009 and 2013. Plaintiff alleges that IRSC relied on this article and anti-Muslim stereotypes in terminating him.

Plaintiff further alleges that internal IRSC emails obtained through a Florida Sunshine Act request show that by April 5, 2024, IRSC’s Campus Safety office had “cleared” Plaintiff and concluded he posed no threat. According to the FAC, IRSC leadership drafted a reinstatement letter following this clearance but never sent it, and Plaintiff received no communication from IRSC for nearly five months.

Plaintiff alleges that this failure to reinstate him was not inadvertent. Rather, he asserts that Defendant [Timothy] Moore, the Chancellor of the Florida College System, personally intervened to prevent his reinstatement, directing IRSC officials not to send the reinstatement letter and insisting that the termination remain in place despite the internal clearance. Plaintiff further alleges that contemporaneous emails show IRSC administrators understood Moore to be closely monitoring the matter and seeking updates regarding Plaintiff’s status.

Plaintiff alleges that a member of the Florida Board of Education brought the 2020 Kaufman article to Moore’s attention, encouraged Moore to act on the article, and thereby played a role in initiating and perpetuating the action taken against him. Plaintiff contends that Moore acted on this encouragement and maintained the termination even after IRSC’s own safety personnel determined that Plaintiff posed no threat.

Plaintiff was ultimately reinstated on August 28, 2024—within an hour of IRSC receiving Plaintiff’s public records request seeking internal communications about his termination, the April 5 clearance, and the withheld reinstatement letter. Plaintiff filed his EEOC charge on February 20, 2025….

The court allowed plaintiff’s constitutional claim to go forward:

To state a First Amendment retaliation claim, a public employee must allege: (1) that he engaged in constitutionally protected speech or association; (2) that he suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) that his protected activity was a substantial or motivating factor in that action.

Applying these elements here, Plaintiff alleges that the adverse actions taken against him—including his termination and IRSC’s months-long refusal to reinstate him—were motivated by his Muslim religious identity and his perceived political associations, all of which constitute protected association.{Part of Ahmed’s First Amendment claim involves alleged protected speech, but for purposes of this motion, it is only necessary to address the alleged protected association.}

He further alleges an adverse employment action in the form of his termination and IRSC’s continued maintenance of that termination even after its own campus safety office formally “cleared” him on April 5, 2024. Finally, Plaintiff plausibly alleges causation by asserting that Moore insisted on keeping him terminated after receiving an inflammatory article referencing Plaintiff’s Muslim identity, directed IRSC officials not to reinstate him despite the internal clearance, and acted on discriminatory assumptions tied to Plaintiff’s religion and perceived political views. These allegations, taken as true, are sufficient at the pleading stage to state a First Amendment retaliation claim.

To state a claim under § 1985(3), a plaintiff must allege: (1) a conspiracy; (2) for the purpose of depriving him of equal protection of the laws; (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; and (4) resulting injury.

Applying these elements here, Plaintiff alleges that Moore and a member of the Florida Board of Education acted jointly to initiate and maintain his termination, including by circulating and relying on an inflammatory article accusing him of being an “Islamist” and urging IRSC to treat him as a security threat despite the absence of any factual basis. Plaintiff further alleges that this coordinated conduct was motivated by discriminatory animus toward Muslims and persons of Pakistani national origin, and that the conspirators took overt acts—such as directing IRSC officials not to reinstate him and withholding a reinstatement letter—to further the discriminatory objective. These allegations, taken as true, plausibly plead a conspiracy, overt acts, and resulting injury….

Lastly, Moore asserts qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects officials unless the plaintiff alleges a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. At this stage, however, further factual development is necessary to resolve the qualified immunity issue. Moreover, neither Party provides any caselaw that addresses whether Moore was put on notice that his action against Ahmed violated clearly established First Amendment law. It is axiomatic that government officials cannot target individuals based on their religion or perceived associations. And a broad principle with obvious clarity may put a defendant notice….

The court also declined to dismiss Ahmed’s Title VII claims, which alleged discrimination based on religion, race, and national origin:

IRSC argues that Ahmed’s Title VII claims are untimely because he filed his EEOC charge on February 20, 2025—356 days after his March 1, 2024 termination—placing the charge outside Title VII’s 300-day filing period applicable in deferral states such as Florida…. [But] Ahmed alleges that IRSC’s Campus Safety office formally “cleared” him on April 5, 2024, which was well within 300 days of his EEOC filing. Yet, IRSC drafted but withheld a reinstatement letter, maintained his terminated status for nearly five months, and reinstated him only on August 28, 2024, within an hour of receiving his public records request.

These allegations, taken as true, plausibly describe not merely the lingering effects of a past decision but a continuing course of discriminatory conduct, including new decisions made after the initial termination that allegedly perpetuated the discrimination…. Because Ahmed alleges discriminatory acts occurring well within 300 days of his EEOC charge, he has plausibly stated a continuing violation, and dismissal on timeliness grounds is inappropriate at this stage.

Chelsea Glover and Samira S. Elhosary (Muslim Legal Fund of America) and Christopher Charles Sharp (Sharp Law Firm, P.A.) represent plaintiff.