Ashraf-Hassan v. Embassy of France
185 F. Supp. 3d 94
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Saima Ashraf-Hassan, a Muslim French citizen, worked at the Embassy of France in Washington, D.C.; she sued under Title VII alleging hostile work environment and discrimination (race, national origin, religion, pregnancy) after incidents from 2001–2007.
- Key incidents found by the court: repeated derogatory comments linking Plaintiff to terrorism; a contraception/family-planning lecture and an attempted firing after Plaintiff disclosed a pregnancy in 2002; derogatory comments from supervisor Christian Tual (including an email referring to her as “the Pashtun”); and reassignment to inferior facilities late in her tenure.
- The three-day bench trial produced conflicting testimony about when Plaintiff learned she was pregnant (March vs. April 2002). The Court credited Plaintiff’s overall account, found portions exaggerated but generally credible, and concluded the pregnancy-related firing/lecture supported discrimination.
- The Court found the conduct by Manes and Tual sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment under Title VII, but awarded modest damages ($30,000) because Plaintiff had not sought medical treatment and some claims were exaggerated.
- After the verdict, the Embassy moved for judicial estoppel, to amend findings under Rule 52(b), and for a new trial/reopening under Rule 59(a)(2), pointing to alleged testimonial contradictions and newly obtained evidence (Manes’s datebook). The Court denied all post-trial motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judicial estoppel bars Plaintiff from testifying she learned of pregnancy in March after earlier statements indicating April | Plaintiff said inconsistent dates reflected confusion, not deliberate contradiction; no unfair advantage obtained | Embassy argued Plaintiff repeatedly took an "April" position in filings and should be estopped from asserting March at trial | Denied: no intentional inconsistency, no judicial acceptance of an earlier position that conferred advantage, estoppel inappropriate |
| Whether the court should amend findings under Rule 52(b) to adopt Embassy’s proposed factual findings (dates, credibility, legitimacy of employer actions) | Plaintiff: trial credibility findings correct; date discrepancies immaterial | Embassy: new evidence and inconsistencies show manifest error and require new findings overturning liability | Denied: moving party failed to show clear error or manifest injustice; disagreement with credibility is not enough |
| Whether newly discovered evidence (Manes’s datebook; medical records) warrants reopening the record or a new trial under Rule 59(a)(2) | Plaintiff opposed late evidence and argued it would not change outcome; records not newly available and relevance limited | Embassy claimed evidence would prove Plaintiff’s trial account impossible and justify a new trial and discovery of medical records | Denied: evidence not newly available, could have been sought earlier, and would not likely change credibility/findings materially |
| Whether Plaintiff’s inconsistent testimony about the pregnancy date fatally undermines her hostile-work-environment claim | Plaintiff: date is immaterial to the legal conclusion; overall testimony and corroboration support liability | Embassy: inconsistency undermines credibility and prejudiced defense (would have led to discovery of medical records) | Denied: court weighed inconsistency and still found Plaintiff credible on core events; inconsistency did not produce unfair advantage or alter outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Moses v. Howard Univ. Hosp., 606 F.3d 789 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (framework for judicial estoppel analysis)
- Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (discussion of inconsistent positions and estoppel)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (judicial estoppel protects judicial integrity where party takes inconsistent positions)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (hostile-work-environment legal standard)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (hostile-work-environment factors and totality-of-circumstances approach)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (elements of employer liability for hostile work environment)
- Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (2006) (no judicial estoppel where party did not succeed in persuading court of earlier position)
- Jackson v. United States, 353 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (credibility involves internal consistency and coherence of testimony)