JARALLAH v. THOMPSON, 15-2052. (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20151221108
Filed: Dec. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 21, 2015
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Tajudin Jarallah appeals the district court's order entering judgment in Defendants' favor on Jarallah's civil claims against Defendants, including his claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012) ("Title VII"). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Jarallah's motion to file an informal supplemental
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Tajudin Jarallah appeals the district court's order entering judgment in Defendants' favor on Jarallah's civil claims against Defendants, including his claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012) ("Title VII"). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Jarallah's motion to file an informal supplemental b..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Tajudin Jarallah appeals the district court's order entering judgment in Defendants' favor on Jarallah's civil claims against Defendants, including his claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012) ("Title VII"). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Jarallah's motion to file an informal supplemental brief and we affirm the district court's order.* Jarallah v. Thompson, No. 8:14-cv-01772-DKC (D. Md. Aug. 17, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
FootNotes
* Although the district court did not apply the hybrid test for determining Title VII joint employment, see Butler v. Drive Auto. Indus., 793 F.3d 404, 408-10, 414-15 (4th Cir. 2015), the record confirms the district court's conclusion that the institutional Defendants were not Jarallah's "employer" under Title VII.
Source: Leagle
