Joseph Salmoiraghi v. Veritiss, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 17, 2023
• Docket: 22-1521
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1521 Doc: 27 Filed: 08/17/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1521

JOSEPH SALMOIRAGHI,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

VERITISS, LLC,

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:19-cv-01405-MSN-TCB)

Submitted: October 20, 2022 Decided: August 17, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Monique Antonia Miles, Danielle G. Pimentel, OLD TOWNE ASSOCIATES, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Courtney R. Abbott, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP. Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1521 Doc: 27 Filed: 08/17/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Joseph Salmoiraghi — a former employee of defendant Veritiss, LLC

(“Veritiss”), a business entity that provides intelligence analysis and related services to the

United States government — initiated this civil action in the Eastern District of Virginia in

November 2019, pursuing, inter alia, a discrimination claim and a retaliation claim, each

alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”).* On appeal,

Salmoiraghi challenges the district court’s award of summary judgment to Veritiss. See

Salmoiraghi v. Veritiss, LLC, No. 1:19-cv-01405 (E.D. Va. Apr. 6, 2022), ECF No. 85.

We review an award of summary judgment de novo. See T.H.E. Ins. Co. v. Davis,

54 F.4th 805, 818 (4th Cir. 2022). Having carefully assessed the record — including the

appellate submissions of the parties and the applicable legal principles governing

Salmoiraghi’s ADA claims — we are satisfied that the district court did not err in awarding

summary judgment to Veritiss. And we are further satisfied to affirm on the thorough and

well-reasoned opinion of the district court, as filed on April 6, 2022. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* By his complaint, Salmoiraghi also claimed that Veritiss created and maintained a hostile work environment, in contravention of the ADA. The district court dismissed that claim in November 2020, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Salmoiraghi does not challenge that ruling, and we need not address it here.