Aly v. Mohegan Council, Boy Scouts of America
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5804
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Aly, an Egyptian-American Muslim, worked for Mohegan Council (BSA) from 2001–2005 as District Executive over membership, program, unit service, and finance.
- Aly received positive reviews early on, including awards and high marks in several categories through 2003.
- Aly organized Muslim community recruitment, including mosque-based meetings in 2003–2004, which contrasted with prior recruitment in schools/churches.
- Aly was recommended for PD-LIII training in 2004 but never sent, unlike Chevalier, a Lebanese Christian, who was promoted after PD-LIII in 2005.
- Aly alleged discrimination related to religion/national origin and denial of promotion; he resigned in 2005 and filed MCAD intake and formal complaints in 2006.
- Trial in 2011 ended with a jury verdict for Aly; Mohegan Council sought judgment as a matter of law, which the district court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Aly’s MCAD filing | Aly’s June 2, 2006 Interview Form was a charge; August 18, 2006 form related back. | Interview Form was defective; relation back not allowed; MCAD untimely. | Interview Form can relate back; timely MCAD filing. |
| Minimum employee threshold for Title VII | Aly showed at least 15 employees via full-time plus seasonal workers filling gaps. | Council had only 14 full-time; seasonal/part-time insufficient to reach 15. | Council met Title VII threshold as an employer. |
| Evidence of discrimination and pretext | Discrepancies in treatment (Aly vs Chevalier) and handling of negative reviews show pretext. | Non-discriminatory reasons (performance, commitment, budget) were credible. | Jury could reasonably find discrimination; district court did not err in denying JMOL. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edelman v. Lynchburg Coll., 300 F.3d 400 (4th Cir. 2002) (recognizes relation-back and oath considerations for charges)
- Holowecki v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 552 U.S. 389 (Supreme Court 2008) (allows intake questionnaires to serve as charges in appropriate circumstances)
- Montes v. Vail Clinic, Inc., 497 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2007) (discusses relation-back principles for initial filings)
- Sánchez v. P.R. Oil Co., 37 F.3d 712 (1st Cir. 1994) (focuses on burden-shifting framework after trial)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (threshold employee requirement is an element, not a jurisdictional issue)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (pretext framework after trial evidence)