Joseph Salmoiraghi v. Veritiss, LLC

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 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.
2

-- 2 of 2 --