Employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees, or prospective employees on the basis of religion, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C, Section 2000(e), et seq. See http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html.
Currently, the most targeted religious group for discrimination in this country is Muslims. Muslims are often referred to as the "new African-Americans" due to the abundance of discrimination and stereotyped fears against them.
Dr. Mohammed Hussain is an East Indian, brown-skinned Muslim. Dr. Hussain served as an oncologist for the Veteran's Administration for 23 years. He is a U.S. citizen. Dr. Hussain raised his five children in Maryland. His wife is a psychiatrist.
Despite his substantial achievements in life, his charity work, and his devotion to his healing profession, the VA would not permit him to rise to the level of Chief of his Division. Instead, the VA held Dr. Hussain in the position of "Acting Chief," without comparable pay, for four years, in violation of government regulations restricting acting positions to ninety days. Dr. Hussain has offered evidence that the hospital was blatantly and oddly divided on the basis of religion -- with alliances and divisions based on Judaism, Hinduism, Catholicism and anti-Muslum sentiment.
Despite excellent evaluations for nineteen years, Dr. Hussain was forced into retirement after years of harassment after his immediate supervisor retired. Although his supervisor's retirement left Dr. Hussain as the "heir apparent" to the position of Chief of the Division, the VA only allowed Dr. Hussain to view the Chief's position through the "glass ceiling" under the Deputy Chief's position, but refused to appoint him his rightful position or to acknowledge him as Chief while he performed the duties of the job for four years.
Unfortunately, Dr. Hussain's right to discovery was compromised by his former counsel. Ms. Martin entered the case at the District Court level shortly before the Court granted summary judgment to the VA, accepting the self-serving affidavits of the discriminating officials as fact, without discovery or cross examination. Cross motions for summary decisions were filed. The Court granted summary judgment to the Defendant, accepting all facts alleged by them as true, despite substantial evidence to the contrary, even without discovery. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed it, holding that Dr. Hussain's previous attorney had failed to obtain discovery within the discovery period, but the judges noted that they felt "sorry" for Dr. Hussain and for Ms. Martin, who worked hard to try to save the case after it was mishandled by previous counsel.