Ninth Circuit upholds dismissal of worker's discrimination and retaliation claims against employer, finding no overlapping…
Zajradhara v. Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
Ninth Circuit upholds dismissal of worker's discrimination and retaliation claims against employer, finding no overlapping charge exception, no proof of bias in hiring, and no adverse action for retaliation.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit denied Zaji Zajradhara's petition challenging a federal administrative ruling that dismissed his claims of national origin discrimination, citizenship status discrimination, and retaliation against his former employer, Aljeric General Services. The court found that his national origin claim was blocked because he had already filed the same claim with the EEOC under Title VII, his citizenship discrimination claim failed because the person hired was more qualified and no other evidence of bias existed, and his retaliation claim failed because he never actually applied for the job he said he was denied in retaliation. The court agreed with the Administrative Law Judge's conclusions on all three issues.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects Zaji Zajradhara and Aljeric General Services. More broadly, it is relevant to workers who believe they have been discriminated against based on citizenship status or national origin under IRCA and to employers facing such administrative complaints.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 20, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 20, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 20, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Zaji Zajradhara, representing himself, brought a complaint under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which prohibits employers from discriminating based on national origin or citizenship status and from retaliating against workers who assert their rights. He alleged that Aljeric General Services discriminated against him and retaliated against him for filing a complaint. A federal Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) dismissed all of his claims, and he asked the Ninth Circuit to reverse that decision. On the national origin discrimination claim, the court agreed with the ALJ that federal law bars a person from filing an IRCA national origin charge based on the exact same facts as a charge already filed with the EEOC under Title VII, unless the EEOC dismissed that charge as falling outside Title VII's coverage. Because Zajradhara had filed an EEOC charge based on the same facts and it was not dismissed as outside Title VII's scope, his IRCA national origin claim was properly blocked. On the citizenship status discrimination claim, the court applied a standard legal test for employment discrimination (the McDonnell Douglas framework) and found that the record supported the ALJ's conclusion that the person Aljeric hired for the operations manager position had better qualifications than Zajradhara, and no other evidence suggested discrimination played a role. Without those basic elements, Zajradhara could not establish even an initial case of discrimination. On the retaliation claim, the court explained that to prove retaliation, a worker must show they suffered an adverse employment action after engaging in a protected activity. Zajradhara argued he was passed over for a 2022 janitorial position because he had filed a complaint. However, the ALJ found, based on the evidence in the record, that Zajradhara never applied for that position. Without an application, there could be no adverse employment action connected to it, so the retaliation claim failed. The court's opinion is marked as not for publication and is not binding legal precedent under Ninth Circuit rules. There was no dissent noted. The three-judge panel unanimously agreed to deny the petition.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ZAJI O. ZAJRADHARA, No. 24-5687 Agency No. Office of the Chief Petitioner, Administrative Hearing Officer v. MEMORANDUM* Nominal OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER; ALJERIC GENERAL SERVICES, LLC, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer Submitted July 15, 2026** Before: NGUYEN, OWENS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Zaji O. Zajradhara petitions pro se for review of the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer’s (OCAHO) Final Decision and Order dismissing Zajradhara’s complaint alleging that Aljeric General Services, LLC (Aljeric) * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). discriminated against him based on his national origin and citizenship status as well as retaliated against him in violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(i)(1). We review de novo the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) conclusions of law, and for substantial evidence the ALJ’s findings of facts. See Mester Mfg. Co. v. INS, 879 F.2d 561, 565 (9th Cir. 1989). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petition for review. 1. The ALJ properly dismissed Zajradhara’s national origin discrimination claim because it was based on the same set of facts as his charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the EEOC did not dismiss the charge as outside the scope of Title VII. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(b)(2) (prohibiting overlapping charges “based on the same set of facts [as a charge] filed with the [EEOC] under title VII . . . unless the charge is dismissed as being outside the scope of such title”). 2. The ALJ properly determined that Zajradhara failed to establish a prima facie case of citizenship discrimination. The record supports the ALJ’s finding that the individual selected for the Aljeric operations manager position had superior qualifications to Zajradhara, and no other facts were presented that would have allowed for an inference of discrimination. See Vasquez v. Cnty. of L.A., 349 F.3d 634, 640–41 & 640 n.5 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth the McDonnell Douglas 2 24-5687 burden-shifting framework and prima facie case); see also Monty v. USA2GO Quick Stores, 16 OCAHO no. 1443c, 9 (2024) (for § 1324b, the OCAHO looks for general guidance to cases arising under Title VII and other federal remedial statutes prohibiting employment discrimination). 3. The ALJ properly determined that Zajradhara failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because, although Zajradhara engaged in a protected activity by filing a complaint, he did not show there was a subsequent adverse employment action by Aljeric. See Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1240–43 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth prima facie case for retaliation and explaining an adverse employment action). Zajradhara argued he was not selected for a 2022 janitorial services position because he filed a complaint. However, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that that Zajradhara did not apply for that position, so there was no evidence of an adverse employment action. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 24-5687
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.