Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02052/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02052-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2052

TAJUDIN JARALLAH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WARREN THOMPSON; JILL BROWN; MAURICE JENOURE; DINA ZAIKOUK; 

DAN KELLY; MAJID ZAGHARI; FRANKLIN SORUCO; ERIK ROBINSON; 

TIFFANY BLAKNEY; BOWIE STATE UNIVERSITY; MORGAN STATE 

UNIVERSITY; PRINCE GEORGE’S COMMUNITY COLLEGE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District 

Judge. (8:14-cv-01772-DKC)

Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tajudin Jarallah, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Patrick Dowd, 

LITTLER MENDELSON PC, Washington, DC; Corlie McCormick, Jr., 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Thomas Faulk, 

Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Vincent Daniel 

Palumbo, Jr., PALUMBO LAW GROUP, LLC, Fort Washington, Maryland, 

Appeal: 15-2052 Doc: 25 Filed: 12/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2052 Doc: 25 Filed: 12/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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-cv01772-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

 * 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.

Appeal: 15-2052 Doc: 25 Filed: 12/21/2015 Pg: 3 of 3