Background
Ayman Salloum, a longtime Colorado Department of Transportation environmental-unit employee, alleged discrimination and retaliation under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. In December 2024, CDOT required all unit employees to work in the office on Tuesdays. A two-hour optional holiday and employee-appreciation party was scheduled for a Tuesday morning.
Salloum told his supervisor he would not participate in the festivities and that it would be appropriate for him to work from home. The supervisor directed him to report to the office, consistent with the Tuesday policy. Salloum later raised religious concerns in the grievance process and ultimately took annual leave during the party. The Colorado Civil Rights Division found no probable cause, and an administrative law judge recommended denying a discretionary hearing. The State Personnel Board adopted that recommendation and dismissed the claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the Board correctly concluded Salloum had not requested a religious accommodation before his work-from-home request was denied: his messages did not identify a religious observance or practice, explain a conflict with working in the office, or expressly seek an accommodation. His later reference to not celebrating Christmas came during the grievance process, after the denial.
The court also held that Salloum failed to establish prima facie discrimination or retaliation claims. The record did not support an inference of discrimination: he was not required to attend the party, all employees were subject to the same Tuesday in-office policy, and he chose leave after speaking with his supervisor. His grievance was protected activity, but it followed the allegedly adverse denial of remote work, defeating the required causal connection for retaliation. The Board therefore did not abuse its discretion by declining a discretionary hearing, and Salloum’s remaining arguments regarding review, bias, and rule enforcement did not warrant reversal.
Key Takeaways
- An employee must communicate a religious basis and a need for accommodation; a general request to work from home is insufficient.
- Comparator evidence requires similarly situated employees who received materially different treatment under the relevant policy.
- A grievance filed after the challenged action cannot establish causation for a retaliation claim based on that action.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that CADA claims require evidence supporting each prima facie element, not merely an employee’s perception of unequal treatment. It also confirms the State Personnel Board may deny a discretionary hearing where the employee’s submitted materials do not show an apparent violation of employment rights.
The court additionally warned that self-represented litigants remain responsible for checking legal authorities, noting that Salloum’s brief cited nonexistent and future-dated cases apparently associated with generative-AI use.