Colorado’s second-highest court agreed last week that a Colorado Department of Transportation employee had not shown that his employer discriminated and retaliated against him due to his religion and national origin.

Ayman Salloum, who described himself as a 70-year-old Muslim immigrant from Jordan, was an environmental protection specialist at CDOT in December 2024. That month, his department organized a holiday party on a Tuesday, which was the required in-office day for employees.

The invitation indicated the party would last for two hours and would take place in a conference room.

Salloum emailed his supervisor the day before the party, writing that he “will not take part in the festivities tomorrow. It will be appropriate for me to work from home tomorrow.”

After his supervisor directed him to report to the office, Salloum responded, “I will be the only one working. There are festivities in the morning and afternoon.”

Salloum then contacted the affirmative action and equal opportunity officer to report religious discrimination. The officer did not find the department had violated Salloum’s religious exercise.

Salloum also wrote to another supervisor to propose that he use three hours of leave to avoid reporting to the office during the party. The supervisor agreed with that proposal.

After the party, Salloum continued to pursue a grievance within the department, seeking an end to “religious persecutions” and “hostility toward non-Caucasian workers,” plus a letter of apology for denying him a religious accommodation.

The Colorado Civil Rights Division investigated and found insufficient evidence to support Salloum’s claims. An administrative law judge concluded Salloum had not requested a religious accommodation and had pointed to no evidence suggesting the department intended to discriminate or retaliate against him. Finally, the Colorado State Personnel Board denied Salloum’s request for a hearing.

Representing himself, Salloum turned to the Court of Appeals to argue that the department’s actions toward him amounted to “forced attendance at a Christmas event.”

“The forced appearance served no operational purpose and instead resulted in humiliation and disparate treatment,” Salloum wrote, adding that employers “must engage in the accommodation process” once an employee invokes a conflict with their religious beliefs.

“His initial communications stated only his belief that it was appropriate to work from home because he did not wish to ‘take part in the festivities.’ And he did not identify any religious observance or practice necessitating his absence from work, nor did he assert that reporting to the office created any religious conflict,” responded the Colorado Attorney General’s Office. “And despite his insistence that he was ‘forced’ to attend a ‘Christmas party,’ the ALJ correctly concluded the party was not a celebration of any religious holiday but was rather an inclusive holiday or employee appreciation event.”

A three-judge Court of Appeals panel agreed that Salloum never requested a religious accommodation nor explained why being in the office at the same time as the party would violate his rights.

“Indeed, he never actually requested anything of his supervisor; instead, without explaining his reasons, he simply declared that it would be ‘appropriate’ for him to work from home because he did not plan to take part in the ‘festivities’,” wrote Judge Matthew D. Grove in the Aug. 27 opinion.

Grove added that Salloum provided no evidence that other employees were allowed to work from home to avoid attending the party.

As for Salloum’s claim that his employer retaliated against him for filing grievances and personnel board appeals in multiple cases, the panel concluded that the grievance Salloum filed after the denial of his work-from-home request could not be evidence that the denial itself was retaliatory.

Salloum declined to comment on the Court of Appeals’ decision. He said he was pursuing other cases, including one in federal court that also alleges discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation.

The case is Salloum v. Department of Transportation et al.