A Pueblo County man may sue the Colorado Department of Corrections, a federal judge ruled, for allegedly demoting him and characterizing his performance as poor only after a supervisor witnessed him performing a Muslim prayer at work.

“While we cannot comment on the merits of the case, we are pleased with the current progress and hope that the judge’s decision brings us forward to a resolution,” said Casey Leier, an associate attorney at Finger Law, P.C. who represents plaintiff Mansoor Shafi.

Shafi began work as a contract administrator for the Colorado Department of Corrections in June 2016 and received a promotion in March 2018. Two months after the promotion, Shafi’s supervisor reportedly saw him praying at work and became “visibly upset.”

Afterward, Shafi, who is originally from Pakistan and prays five times per day in the Muslim tradition of salat, began receiving negative performance evaluations, culminating in a demotion in August 2018. Shafi’s pay also dropped by more than $2,000 per month as a result.

He filed a federal complaint in October 2019 against the department, alleging discrimination based on his race, religion or national origin, plus a hostile work environment. Shafi also claimed his superiors retaliated against him after he reported the discrimination, in violation of federal civil rights law. Specific incidents included a prohibition on emailing coworkers or vendors and receiving “dirty looks” from his supervisor. Shafi believed DOC was attempting to force him to resign.

The department countered that Shafi’s supervisor who reportedly witnessed the prayer actually did not know whether he was “praying, meditating or just taking a moment for himself” when she saw him. She resigned shortly afterward and had no say in the decision to demote him. Over the course of several performance evaluations from multiple supervisors, they noted Shafi’s communication was inaccurate, that he failed to pay attention to detail and “is still including emojis in his correspondence.”

“DOC is committed to ensuring a workplace free from unlawful discrimination and retaliation. To this end, DOC has a zero-tolerance policy of discrimination and retaliation based upon, among other things, race national origin and religion,” Attorney General Phil Weiser’s office wrote to the court.

On April 13, U.S. District Court Judge Christine M. Arguello dismissed Shafi’s claims related to a hostile work environment. She found no evidence of repeated harassment based on Shafi’s race or religion, only his assertion that on one occasion, his supervisor “berated him” after she saw him praying.

However, Arguello allowed the allegation of discrimination to proceed, finding Shafi had offered sufficient evidence that he was the member of a federally-protected category of persons, that his employer took an action detrimental to him, and that the circumstances suggested discrimination.

Shafi, the judge determined, showed he had received positive performance evaluations until the alleged prayer incident. Although the department provided a non-discriminatory explanation for the demotion — Shafi’s poor performance — Arguello determined a jury could find the department’s assertions implausible. Therefore, she declined to dismiss the claim outright.

Shafi “argues that it is far more likely that his supervisors’ attitude toward him changed due to his religion than that his performance ‘suddenly cratered’ in the months following his promotion,” Arguello wrote in an order. “This issue largely turns on credibility: the credibility of Shafi’s accusations and the credibility of his supervisors’ explanations.”

She also allowed one of Shafi’s retaliation claims to move forward for the treatment he allegedly experienced as a result of complaining about his supervisor. The judge acknowledged Shafi’s performance evaluations changed after the incident and the department did not conduct a discrimination investigation, creating a question for a jury to resolve.

A DOC spokesperson said the department would not comment on pending litigation.

The case is Shafi v. Colorado Department of Corrections.