KAHN v. FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC., 15-1748. (2016)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20160113084
Filed: Jan. 13, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 13, 2016
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Zulfiqar Kahn appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to FedEx Office & Print Services, Inc., in his civil action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012). As the district court ruled, Kahn failed to administratively exhaust his retaliation claim by properly raising it with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. See Balas v. Hun
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Zulfiqar Kahn appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to FedEx Office & Print Services, Inc., in his civil action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012). As the district court ruled, Kahn failed to administratively exhaust his retaliation claim by properly raising it with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. See Balas v. Hunt..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Zulfiqar Kahn appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to FedEx Office & Print Services, Inc., in his civil action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012). As the district court ruled, Kahn failed to administratively exhaust his retaliation claim by properly raising it with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. See Balas v. Huntington Ingalls Indus., Inc., 711 F.3d 401, 406-09 (4th Cir. 2013). The court correctly held that Kahn did not state a claim sufficient to withstand summary judgment on his claims of discrimination based on national origin and religion. His claims of procedural irregularities in the district court entitle him to no relief. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Kahn v. FedEx Corporation, No. 1:14-cv-00561-GBL-IDD (E.D. Va. May 29, 2015).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
Source: Leagle
