Frank RICCI, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Edward Riordan, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto and Mark Vendetto, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John DESTEFANO, Karen Dubois-Walton, Thomas Ude Jr., Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcom Weber, Zelma Tirado and City of New Haven, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-4996-cv.United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
February 15, 2008.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Karen Lee Torre, New Haven, CT, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Richard A. Roberts (Nicole C. Chomiak, Stacey L. Pitcher, and Todd J. Richardson on the brief), Cheshire, CT, for Defendants-Appellants.

Page 107

Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, ROBERT D. SACK and SONIA SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, J.) granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all counts.

We affirm, substantially for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion of the court below. In this case, the Civil Service Board found itself in the unfortunate position of having no good alternatives. We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs’ expression of frustration. Mr. Ricci, for example, who is dyslexic, made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated. But it simply does not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim. To the contrary, because the Board, in refusing to validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were protected.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

image_pdfimage_print