Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01748/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01748-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-1748

ZULFIQAR KAHN,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

FEDEX CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:14-cv-00561-GBL-IDD)

Submitted: November 30, 2015 Decided: January 13, 2016

Before DUNCAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Zulfiqar Kahn, Appellant Pro Se. John Byron Flood, Joleen Okun, 

OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C., for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1748 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/13/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

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

Appeal: 15-1748 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/13/2016 Pg: 2 of 2