14-2617

Schwarzkopf v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1,

2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE

32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL

APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE

A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 17th 4 day of June, two thousand fifteen.

5

6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,

7 REENA RAGGI,

8 GERARD E. LYNCH,

9 Circuit Judges.

10

11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

12 JOHN SCHWARZKOPF, JR., 

13 Plaintiff-Appellant,

14

15 -v.- 14-2617

16

17 SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, 

18 Defendant-Appellee.

19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

20

21 FOR APPELLANT: NICOLE M. ROTHGEB (with Gregg D.

22 Adler, on the brief), Livingston,

23 Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn & Kelly,

24 P.C., Hartford, Connecticut.

25

26 FOR APPELLEE: HOWARD FETNER (with Felix J.

27 Springer, Day Pitney LLP, Hartford,

28 Connecticut on the brief), Day Pitney

29 LLP, New Haven, Connecticut.

30

31 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District

32 Court for the District of Connecticut (Covello, J.).
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED

2 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be

3 AFFIRMED. 

4

5 Plaintiff-appellant John Schwarzkopf, Jr., appeals from

6 the judgment of the United States District Court for the

7 District of Connecticut (Covello, J.), granting summary

8 judgment in favor of defendant-appellee Sikorsky Aircraft

9 Corporation. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

10 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues

11 presented for review. 

12

13 Upon de novo review, Delaney v. Bank of Am. Corp., 766

14 F.3d 163, 167 (2d Cir. 2014), we affirm the district court’s

15 grant of summary judgment in favor of Sikorsky because the

16 record does not raise a triable issue of fact supporting

Schwarzkopf’s disability-discrimination claims.1 17 

18

19 Schwarzkopf’s position was eliminated pursuant to a

20 reduction in force; other employees characterized as

21 disabled by Schwarzkopf were retained; and the company’s

22 nondiscriminatory metrics for evaluating performance

23 supported Schwarzkopf’s termination. See id. at 168; see

24 generally Viola v. Philips Med. Sys. of N. Am., 42 F.3d 712

25 (2d Cir. 1994). 

26

27 We reject any invitation to second-guess Sikorsky’s

28 personnel decisions because “we do not sit as a super29 personnel department that reexamines an entity’s business

30 decisions.” Delaney, 766 F.3d at 169 (internal quotation

31 marks omitted).

32

33 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in

34 Schwarzkopf’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment

35 of the district court.

36

37 FOR THE COURT:

38 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

39

1 Schwarzkopf has expressly abandoned his agediscrimination claims on appeal. See Appellant’s Br. at 2,

n.1; see generally Fabrikant v. French, 691 F.3d 193, 202 &

n.8 (2d Cir. 2012).

2