Francis Saitta v. Tucson Unified School District

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 4 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCIS PATRICK SAITTA, No. 15-16155
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:14-cv-02074-JGZ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TUCSON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2016**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Francis Patrick Saitta appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his employment discrimination action alleging a disparate impact
claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Johnson v. Henderson,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
314 F.3d 409, 413 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Saitta failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s hiring practice
produced an age-based disparate impact. See Stockwell v. City & County of San
Francisco, 749 F.3d 1107, 1115 (9th Cir. 2014) (disparate impact claimant “must
demonstrate a statistical disparity affecting members of the protected group”); see
also Rose v. Wells Fargo & Co., 902 F.2d 1417, 1421 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[P]laintiff
must actually prove the discriminatory impact at issue, rather than merely an
inference of discriminatory impact.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-16155