This is the second partial motion to dismiss in the case. The court previously granted Aldi's first partial motion to dismiss in its entirety on September 24, 2025, with leave to amend. Plaintiff Ahmadshehzad Kaywan filed an amended complaint on October 8, 2025, and Aldi moved again to dismiss.
According to the amended complaint, Kaywan worked as a Senior Assistant Manager at an Aldi store in Broadlands, Virginia, reporting to Store Manager Daniel Whitmer and District Manager Laszlo Hangyas. Kaywan alleges he had been granted a religious accommodation to refrain from working on Fridays in observance of his faith, but that Hangyas repeatedly scheduled him on those days anyway. Kaywan further alleges that Whitmer pressured him to forgo his Friday religious observances, failed to respond timely to prayer-break requests, and berated him for his religious practices in front of customers and other employees. During Ramadan 2023, Kaywan's request to work daytime hours only was allegedly approved, but he was told such accommodations would not be granted in future years.
The whistleblower claim arose from Kaywan's alleged reports of monetary discrepancies in the store's safe and registers. According to the amended complaint, he reported what he described as a pattern of theft or embezzlement to Whitmer and Hangyas, and separately reported instances of theft by Senior Assistant Manager Ruth Vaca to HR and his superiors. The complaint alleges that disciplinary action was taken against Vaca following those reports. Some time later, it allegedly became known that Kaywan was the source of the reports, and he was terminated on or about September 25, 2023, without explanation.
Judge Rossie D. Alston Jr. denied Aldi's partial motion to dismiss in its entirety. On the Title VII claim, the court noted that Kaywan clarified in his opposition that he is not pursuing a national origin discrimination theory, so the court construed Count I as asserting only a religious discrimination claim and denied the national origin portion as moot.
The more substantive fight was over the Virginia Whistleblower Protection Act claim under Va. Code § 40.1-27.3. Aldi argued Kaywan had merely reported money discrepancies, not that he believed theft or embezzlement was occurring. The court rejected that reading, pointing to allegations in the amended complaint that Kaywan specifically reported a pattern of theft or embezzlement and named Vaca as the perpetrator. The court also noted that the alleged disciplinary action taken against Vaca after Kaywan's report supported a reasonable inference that the report was meritorious, not just based on reasonable belief.
On causation, the court found that temporal proximity alone was insufficient — Kaywan alleged only one specific date, his September 25, 2023 termination, and did not specify when he made his reports or when Hangyas learned he was the source. But the court found that the combination of allegations — Vaca's alleged preferential treatment from Hangyas, the alleged discipline of Vaca following Kaywan's reports, Hangyas learning Kaywan was the whistleblower, the termination occurring not long after, and Hangyas's role as personnel leader — plausibly permitted a reasonable inference of causation at the pleading stage.
The court ordered a scheduling order to issue promptly.