A federal appeals court has reinstated religious and national origin discrimination and retaliation charges filed by a Muslim woman who worked for the Cook County, Illinois, court system.

Fozyia Huri, who was born in Saudi Arabia and wore a hijab, or Islamic head scarf, began work for the office of the chief judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County in Chicago in 2000, according to Wednesday’s ruling by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago in Fozyia Huri v. Office of the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County et al.

From 2002 through November 2010, Ms. Huri worked as a child care attendant under Sylvia McCullum, who is a “devout (and allegedly vocal) Christian,” according to the ruling.

Ms. McCullum was unfriendly to Ms. Huri from the beginning, and in 2009 “ratcheted up the rhetoric,” telling a co-worker to work with a “good Christian” rather than with Ms. Huri, who was “evil.”

She also falsely criticized Ms. Huri and made false misconduct allegations against her, “subjected her to different rules than her co-workers, screamed at her, and generally subjected her to greater scrutiny than her co-workers,” according to the ruling.

In November 2010, Ms. Huri was transferred to the court reporters’ office at the circuit court, but her supervisors “generally behaved as badly” as Ms. McCullum, retaliating against her for filing charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and subjecting her to different rules, including prohibiting her daughter from waiting for her in the lobby, when children of other workers were admitted both to the lobby and offices, according to the ruling.

Ms. Huri filed suit, charging she had been subjected to a hostile work environment on the basis of her religion and national original and retaliation.

The U.S. District Court in Chicago dismissed the case, holding that Ms. Huri had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and that her supervisors were entitled to qualified immunity as government workers.

A three-judge appeals court panel unanimously reinstated the charges and remanded the case for further proceedings. Ms. Hari’s pleadings “describe events that could have happened and which discovery can be reasonably expected to reveal,” said the ruling.

In discussing the retaliation charge, the ruling said “the litany of malfeasance she alleges — screaming, false disciplinary reports, mistreatment of her daughter, exclusion from social functions, denial of time off etc. — would certainly cause a reasonable worker to think twice about complaining about discrimination — that’s all it takes in the retaliation context.”