A federal court recently issued a ruling in the case of Ominoba F. Egei v. Universal Protection Service, LLC, which centers on allegations of workplace discrimination and retaliation. The court's decision impacts Egei, a former employee, and the security company she claims mistreated her based on her national origin and her need for medical leave. This case highlights the ongoing issues of discrimination and employee rights in the workplace.
Ominoba Egei, a Nigerian national, filed her lawsuit against Universal Protection Service on August 18, 2026, in the District Court for the District of Columbia, under Civil Action No. 2025-4174. Egei claims that after she requested leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to care for her disabled son, her employer retaliated against her. She also alleges national origin discrimination, harassment, and a hostile work environment, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the D.C. Human Rights Act.
The dispute began when Egei started working for Universal Protection Service in July 2019 as a security officer. In October 2020, she requested FMLA leave, but she claims the company denied her request without proper notice. Following this denial, Egei alleges that her work environment became increasingly hostile. She reported various incidents of mistreatment, including her supervisor ignoring her, falsely marking her late, and even humiliating her in front of colleagues. Despite filing multiple complaints with Human Resources, Egei claims no corrective action was taken, leading to her termination in November 2021.
The court's ruling addressed several key aspects of Egei's claims. Judge Tanya S. Chutkan ruled that Universal Protection Service's motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court dismissed Egei's FMLA claims without prejudice, meaning she may have the opportunity to amend her complaint and refile. However, the court allowed her claims of national origin discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment to proceed.
The court stated, "Drawing reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, a manager’s explicit invocation of Plaintiff’s Nigerian origin to justify her mistreatment, followed by a series of adverse actions, plausibly supports an inference of discrimination."
Judge Chutkan's opinion emphasized the importance of allowing Egei's claims to move forward, particularly given the serious nature of the allegations. The ruling noted that Egei had alleged sufficient facts to support her claims of discrimination and retaliation, including that her complaints about mistreatment were met with hostility from her supervisors.
The court's decision has significant implications for Egei and potentially for other employees facing similar situations. By allowing her claims to proceed, the ruling reinforces the legal protections against workplace discrimination and retaliation based on national origin and medical leave requests. It also highlights the importance of employers taking employee complaints seriously and addressing them appropriately.
Moving forward, Egei's case will continue in court, where she will have the opportunity to present her claims in more detail. The ruling does not prevent Universal Protection Service from appealing the decision, but it does set a precedent for how cases involving discrimination and retaliation are handled in the workplace.
While the court dismissed Egei's FMLA claims, it left the door open for her to provide additional information that could support her case. This aspect of the ruling illustrates the complexities of employment law and the challenges employees may face when navigating the legal system.
As this case progresses, it will be essential to monitor any developments, including whether Universal Protection Service decides to appeal the ruling or if Egei files an amended complaint. The outcome of this case could have broader implications for workplace rights and the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.