Tajudin Jarallah v. Warren Thompson, No. 15-2052 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2052 TAJUDIN JARALLAH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARREN THOMPSON; JILL BROWN; MAURICE JENOURE;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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Tajudin entering Jarallah judgment in appeals the Defendants’ district favor on court’s order Jarallah’s civil claims against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”). and find no reversible error. We have reviewed the record Accordingly, we grant Jarallah’s motion to file an informal supplemental brief and we affirm the district court’s 01772-DKC (D. order. * Md. Aug. Jarallah v. Thompson, 17, 2015). We No. 8:14-cv- 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. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.