Case Name: Francis Patrick SAITTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TUCSON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-04
Citations: 669 F. App'x 463
Docket Number: No. 15-16155
Parties: Francis Patrick SAITTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TUCSON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 463–464

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.