Case ID: f-appx_669/html/0463-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Francis Patrick SAITTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TUCSON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-16155
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 27, 2016 
    
    Filed October 4, 2016
    Francis Patrick Saitta, Pro Se
    Lisa Anne Trudinger-Smith, Attorney, DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & Lácy, P.C., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      The panel unanimously ^concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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, 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.