Steven Isaac v. Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc.

Isaac v. Middle East Broadcasting Networks · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · June 17, 2026 · No. 25-1333

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of separate Title VII national-origin discrimination actions brought by Maan Aljizzani and Steven Isaac against Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficiently comparable non-Iraqi employees who violated the employer’s social-media policies or disobeyed direct warnings and orders, leaving an obvious alternative explanation for their terminations. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Aljizzani’s amended complaint with prejudice because he had not requested leave to amend.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Paul V. Niemeyer; Julius N. Richardson Quattlebaum; J. Harvie Wilkinson III Rushing
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decision date
June 17, 2026
Docket number
25-1333
Procedural posture
Isaac appealed the dismissal of his amended Title VII national-origin-discrimination complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Fourth Circuit also decided the companion appeal of Maan Aljizzani, whose similar complaint was dismissed by a different district court.
Standard of review
De novo review of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); abuse-of-discretion review of the denial of leave to amend.
Precedential value
Published and precedential Fourth Circuit opinion
Parties
Steven Isaac, Maan Aljizzani v. Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc.
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

employment discriminationtitle viimotions to dismissappellate procedurecivil procedure

Practice areas

employment lawcivil rightsappellate procedurecivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Isaac's amended complaint plausibly alleged that MBN terminated him because of his Iraqi national origin in violation of Title VII.
  2. Whether the district court erred in dismissing the complaint without allowing a further amendment.
  3. Whether the alleged non-Iraqi comparators were sufficiently similar to Isaac to support an inference of discriminatory termination.

Holdings

  1. Isaac's amended complaint failed to state a plausible Title VII claim because it did not allege facts permitting a reasonable inference that MBN terminated him because of his national origin rather than for repeated violations of the Code of Ethics and social-media policy after a direct warning.
  2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the amended complaint without granting further leave to amend because Isaac did not properly request leave to amend, and the proposed additional comparator information would not cure the fundamental deficiency in his theory.

Key quotations

Neither complaint alleged facts that could give rise to a plausible inference of discrimination. (13)
We therefore affirm the judgments in both cases. (13)
The judgments entered on June 20, 2024 (in No. 24-1672) and March 7, 2025 (in No. 25-1333) are accordingly AFFIRMED. (15)

Factual background

Steven Isaac was employed as a journalist by Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc., which operated Alhurra TV and related media networks. MBN's Code of Ethics and social-media policy required journalists to remain neutral and authorized discipline, including termination, for violations. After receiving a warning not to post political content about Iraq, Isaac posted at least four politically oriented items concerning Iraq, and MBN terminated his employment. Isaac alleged that non-Iraqi employees who posted political content or otherwise violated the policy were treated more leniently, but he did not allege sufficiently similar conduct, including comparable disobedience of a direct warning or order.

Procedural history

The Eastern District of Virginia dismissed Isaac's amended complaint for failure to allege a plausible claim of national-origin discrimination, concluding that the alleged comparators were insufficiently similar. Isaac appealed. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…