Janos Roper v. City of Cincinnati Fire Department

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 26a0266n.06
No. 25-3700
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
JANOS ROPER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF CINCINNATI FIRE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO
OPINION
Before: KETHLEDGE, NALBANDIAN, and HERMANDORFER, Circuit Judges.
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Janos Roper appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment to his employer, the Cincinnati Fire Department—which he says racially discriminated
against him. We reject his arguments and affirm.
In 2019, Roper—a longtime Cincinnati firefighter—sat for a test to be promoted to district
chief. During one typewritten section, Roper and several other candidates experienced a problem
with the testing software, which upset the formatting of their answers. According to Roper, this
problem cost him time during the test and was “very damaging” to his performance.
Roper reported the problem to one of the Department’s human-resources employees, who
relayed Roper’s complaint to the company that had created the test. The company investigated
and said the problem had been the result of user error. The company scored the test, however,
without regard to any formatting errors. The Department then promoted candidates (or not) based

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 25-3700, Roper v. City of Cincinnati Fire Dep’t
-2-
solely on their test scores. Roper’s score placed him 16th among the candidates eligible for 11
vacant positions, so the Department did not promote him to district chief.
In 2022, Roper brought this suit in state court, claiming (as relevant here) that the
Department had discriminated against him because of his race—both by subjecting him to different
terms and conditions of employment during the test, and by failing to promote him. The
Department removed the suit to federal court, and later moved for summary judgment. The district
court granted the motion, holding that Roper had failed to make out a prima facie case of racial
discrimination. This appeal followed.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Sloat v. Hewlett-
Packard Enter. Co., 18 F.4th 204, 209 (6th Cir. 2021).
Roper argues that the Department declined to promote him because of his race. For Roper
to make out a prima facie case under Title VII, he must show (among other things) that the
Department instead promoted someone who was similar to him in all relevant respects, except for
race. See Wheat v. Fifth Third Bank, 785 F.3d 230, 238 (6th Cir. 2015). Roper concedes, however,
that the Department simply promoted the top 11 scorers on the test—in “sequential order”—to fill
all 11 of the open positions. Roper scored worse than everyone who was promoted, so he cannot
show that they were like him in the sole respect that governed promotions. See Provenzano v. LCI
Holdings, Inc., 663 F.3d 806, 814 (6th Cir. 2011).
Roper responds that his claim (in part) is that the test itself was defective, and so its results
should not render him dissimilar to the promoted candidates. But Title VII provides a remedy for
racial discrimination, not for defective tests. Here, the test results were undisputedly the sole
criterion on which candidates were promoted; and the Department’s application of that criterion
was undisputedly race neutral. To make out a prima facie case of discrimination, therefore, Roper

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-3700, Roper v. City of Cincinnati Fire Dep’t
-3-
must present evidence that the formatting problem (which he says impaired his test performance)
was itself the result of racial discrimination. And Roper has developed no argument to that effect
in the district court or this court. The district court was therefore correct to grant summary
judgment to the Department.
The district court’s judgment is affirmed.

-- 3 of 3 --