14-2617 Schwarzkopf v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## SUMMARY ORDER

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER J** **ANUARY 1,**  **2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY**  **F EDERAL**  **R ULE OF**  **A PPELLATE**  **P ROCEDURE**  **32.1 AND THIS**  **COURT ’**  **S L**  **OCAL R**  **ULE 32.1.1.**  **W HEN CITING A SUM**  **MARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT**  **, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE**  **F EDERAL**  **A PPENDIX 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 .**  **At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 

### 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 

### 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 

### 3 **on the 17 th** **day of June, two thousand fifteen.** 

### 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 

### 6 **REENA RAGGI,** 

### 7 **GERARD E. LYNCH,** 

### 8 **Circuit Judges**

**.** 

### 9 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

### 11 **JOHN SCHWARZKOPF, JR.,** 

### 12 **Plaintiff-Appellant ,**  

### 13 14 **-v.- 14-2617** 

### 15 16 **SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION,** 

### 17 **Defendant-Appellee**

**.** 

### 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

### 19 20 **FOR APPELLANT:** NICOLE M. ROTHGEB (withGregg D. 

### 21 Adler, on the brief ), Livingston, 

### 22 Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn & Kelly, 

### 23 P.C., Hartford, Connecticut. 

### 24 25 **FOR APPELLEE:** HOWARD FETNER (withFelix J. 

### 26 Springer, Day Pitney LLP, Hartford, 

### 27 Connecticut on the brief ), Day Pitney 

### 28 LLP, New Haven, Connecticut. 

### 29 30 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 

### 31 Court for the District of Connecticut (Covello, J. ). 

### 32**UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 

### 1 **AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 

### 2
**AFFIRMED**

. 

### 3 4 Plaintiff-appellant John Schwarzkopf, Jr., appeals from 

### 5 the judgment of the United States District Court for the 

### 6 District of Connecticut (Covello, J. ), granting summary 

### 7 judgment in favor of defendant-appellee Sikorsky Aircraft 

### 8 Corporation. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 

### 9 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 

### 10 presented for review. 

### 11 12 Upon de novo review, Delaney v. Bank of Am. Corp. , 766 

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

### 14 grant of summary judgment in favor of Sikorsky because the 

### 15 record does not raise a triable issue of fact supporting 

### 16 Schwarzkopf’s disability-discrimination claims. 1 

### 17 18 Schwarzkopf’s position was eliminated pursuant to a 

### 19 reduction in force; other employees characterized as 

### 20 disabled by Schwarzkopf were retained; and the company’s 

### 21 nondiscriminatory metrics for evaluating performance 

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

### 23 generallyViola v. Philips Med. Sys. of N. Am. , 42 F.3d 712 

### 24 (2d Cir. 1994). 

### 25 26 We reject any invitation to second-guess Sikorsky’s 

### 27 personnel decisions because “we do not sit as a super

### 28 personnel department that reexamines an entity’s business 

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

### 30 marks omitted). 

### 31 32 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in 

### 33 Schwarzkopf’s other arguments, we hereby **AFFIRM** the judgment 

### 34 of the district court. 

### 35 36 FOR THE COURT: 

### 37 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 

### 38 39

1 Schwarzkopf has expressly abandoned his agediscrimination claims on appeal. See Appellant’s Br. at 2, n.1; see generallyFabrikant v. French , 691 F.3d 193, 202 & n.8 (2d Cir. 2012).

2