Opinion ID: 2981799
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Choulagh’s Work History

Text: With that background in mind, we turn now to the events that took place after Boyden’s arrival at the Detroit division. As illustrated below, Boyden’s relationship with Choulagh got off to a rocky start, beginning first with a sleeping incident. Although the incidents are numerous and detailed, we will only briefly recite the facts relevant to the legal analysis. On March 30, 2009, Boyden saw Choulagh sleeping at his desk. Another language analyst witnessed this incident as well. Boyden then called Choulagh on the telephone at his desk, but Choulagh did not answer. Boyden then asked another analyst to call Choulagh on his cell phone. After approximately 10 rings, Choulagh awoke to answer the phone. On April 1, 2009, Choulagh was out sick with bronchitis. On that same day, Boyden sent Choulagh an email about the sleeping incident. The email stated that Boyden witnessed Choulagh sleeping at his desk, but that the incident was minor unless it became a pattern. The email further -2- No. 12-1957 Hany Choulagh v. Eric Holder, Jr. stated, “If you are having some difficulty (medical or personal), that you would like some time off to resolve or if there is anything else I can do, please let me know.” On April 2, 2009, Choulagh returned to work and read the email. Acting Supervisor Jean Younes and Boyden stated that upon reading the email, Choulagh became irate and demanded an apology. They stated that Choulagh said that medication may have made him drowsy, but he was not sleeping. During this time period, Boyden received complaints from other language analysts about Choulagh’s disruptive behavior and excessive telephone use. Also in early April, Boyden noticed that Choulagh began to look “unshaven, unkempt, and disheveled” and appeared stressed. Boyden discussed this physical change with his supervisor, who agreed with the observation and recommended that Boyden refer Choulagh to the Employee Assistance Program (“EAP”).1 On April 9, 2009, after Choulagh returned from another few days of sick leave for his bronchitis, Boyden emailed him about the EAP. The email stated that its purpose was to “express my personal concern for your welfare, and to address your recent irritability, agitated demeanor and trouble with sleep.” In the email, Boyden stated that he had issues with Choulagh’s ability to get along with others and his complaining openly to employees regarding his interactions with Boyden. Boyden recommended that Choulagh seek counseling through EAP. On April 10, 2009, Boyden gave Choulagh a memo formally referring him to EAP, but Choulagh refused to sign the memo 1 EAP is a confidential program available to help FBI employees deal with personal problems. -3- No. 12-1957 Hany Choulagh v. Eric Holder, Jr. acknowledging receipt. Choulagh did go to EAP, but the coordinator concluded that he would not benefit from joining the program. On May 18, 2009, Boyden claims that he again observed Choulagh sleeping at his desk. Boyden met with other supervisors and they decided that Choulagh’s desk should be moved closer to Boyden’s office so that he could be monitored more closely. Choulagh claims that the placement of the desk near Boyden’s office is distracting because it is near a common work area where other employees congregate to talk. He complains that when he is trying to translate, Boyden often throws and bounces a rubber ball near his desk. On May 20, 2009, Boyden told Choulagh that he was limiting him to on-site duties due to his “inappropriate and disruptive behavior and his insubordination.” In late May, Boyden also sent a memo to FBI headquarters requesting approval to place Choulagh on a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”). Around this same time period, FBI headquarters sent an email to all language analysts regarding a one-year Temporary Duty Assignment (“TDY”) to a foreign country. Choulagh sought Boyden’s approval to apply for a TDY, but Boyden denied the request because of Choulagh’s recent on-site restrictions. In June, FBI headquarters approved the PIP request and Choulagh was placed on the PIP. As part of the PIP, Choulagh had to account for his daily activities and had restricted telephone use. These limitations stemmed from Boyden’s observations and other complaints from language analysts of Choulagh’s excessive, loud, often foul-mouthed, and disruptive telephone use, as well as extended periods of time away from his desk, unrelated to work activities. -4- No. 12-1957 Hany Choulagh v. Eric Holder, Jr. In mid-June, Boyden heard that Choulagh had repeatedly asked another language analyst to remove a picture from his work station. The language analyst had a picture of an Egyptian soccer player named Hany Sham’un celebrating after a win, as well as a separate, unrelated picture of a monkey. Choulagh thought that the two pictures were related and referred to him. In his complaint, Choulagh alleges that he wanted the picture as evidence for his EEO complaint. Boyden and Younes met with Choulagh to discuss the issue and later emailed Choulagh stating that he was “not to remove, borrow, damage, or move” anything from another employee’s desk without their permission. In August 2009, Choulagh filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination due to his national origin and his previous testimony for the former employee. In October 2009, an FBI quality control reviewer, in a double-blind process, rated Choulagh’s translation as “Not Satisfactory.” This was Choulagh’s second such rating. The report stated that the translation had numerous grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, and mistranslations of significant words. In November, per FBI policy, Boyden notified Choulagh in a memo that because he had received two “not satisfactory” ratings, further quality issues might lead to the issuance of a warning performance-appraisal report. In December 2009, Boyden prepared a memo for Choulagh’s termination, detailing the above mentioned incidents, as well as continued problems with excessive telephone use and two more sleeping incidents. Boyden never submitted this memo, and Choulagh was never terminated. In February 2010, Choulagh told Boyden he was interested in participating in a High-Value Interrogation Group (HIG)2 . Boyden told Choulagh that he had reservations about recommending 2 A HIG is an interagency team deployed worldwide at short notice when a high-value target is in custody. -5- No. 12-1957 Hany Choulagh v. Eric Holder, Jr. him for the group because of his twenty-one sick leave requests in the last year and because it was an additional duty on top of his regular assignments. Boyden did not recommend Choulagh. In March 2010, Boyden received additional complaints about Choulagh from other language analysts. These complaints concerned Choulagh’s excessive personal telephone use and frequent absences from his desk. In response to these complaints, Boyden asked Choulagh to keep his cell phone in his desk drawer and to document his time away from his desk if the time period exceeded fifteen minutes. In April 2010, Choulagh filed a second EEO complaint alleging that the events from December 2009 to March 2010 constituted retaliation for having filed the first complaint in August 2009. In addition to the facts recited above, Choulagh claims that during this time period Boyden also made a derogatory comment referencing his national origin. Specifically, he claims in his brief to this Court that on one occasion when a group of language analysts of Iraqi origin was gathered in the office, Boyden referred to them as a “gang of Iraqis.” Affidavits and deposition testimony from Choulagh himself, however, reveal that Boyden only used the words “gang gathering” and never referenced the analysts’ Iraqi origin. In October 2010, Choulagh filed this Title VII suit alleging one count of national origin discrimination and three counts of retaliation. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, finding that Choulagh had not made out a prima facie hostile work environment claim or a retaliation claim. Choulagh timely appealed. -6- No. 12-1957 Hany Choulagh v. Eric Holder, Jr.