FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 13, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 85 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :0 8- cv -0 05 50 -RH-WCS TROY G. AVE RA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us UNITED AIRLINES, INC., UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 13 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, BAR KETT, an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Troy G. Aver a, a fo rm er Un it edAirl in es pi lo t, b ro ug htth is act io n a ga in st th e Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca (t he go ve rn m en t), t he U.S. Departm en t o fTran sp orta ti on , andth e Fed eral Avi at io n Ad m in is tra ti on(co ll ect iv el y , th e fed eral

de fen da nt s) , andUni te d Ai rli ne s, In c. He all eg edvi ol at io ns of t he Age 1 Dis cri m in at io n i n Em

pl oym en t Actof 1 96 7, 2 9 U.S.C. § 62 3( a), an d t he Em pl oyee Ret ire m en t In co m e Sec ur it y Act, 2 9 U.S.C. § 10 01 et s eq ., andso ug hta de cl arat ory

jud gm en t tha t the Fai r Treat m en t o f Exp eri en cedPil ot s Act(th e Pi lo ts Act) , 49 U.S.C. § 4 47 29 , andth e FAA’s “ Age 60 Ru le ,” 14 C.F.R. § 12 1.3 83 (2 00 6) , are u nc on st itut io na l. Av era c on te nd s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredwhen it : (1 ) de ni edhi s m ot io n t o c om pe l d is co ve ry ; (2 ) de ni edhi s m ot io n t o a m en d h is
co m pl ai nta se co ndti m e; (3) de ni edhi s m ot io n t o “ st rik e d own ” th e Pi lo ts Act an d th e Age 60 Ru le ; (4 ) gr an te d t he fed eral de fen da nt s’ m ot io n t o d is m is s; an d (5 ) gr an te d Un it ed ’s su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n o n h is ADEA andERISA cl ai m s.

I. In19 59 th e FAA is su edth e so -cal le d Ag e 6 0 R ul e th atno pe rs on co ul d
se rv e as “ a p il oton anair pl an e . . . if th atpe rs onha s re ach edhi s 6 0t h b irt hd ay .” 14 C.F.R. § 12 1.3 83 (c). Av era b ecame a pi lo t fo r Uni te d i n 1 99 5. In 20 07 , two
m on th s b efo re h is 60 th bi rth day , he a sk edUni te d t o jo inhi m in pe ti ti on in g t he FAA to waiv e th e Age 60 Ru le forhi m . Uni te d d ecl in ed , andth e FAA la te r de ni edhi s p et it io n.
Aver a is proce edingpro se but he is a licensed me mber of theFlorida Ba r. 1 2At the ti m e o f th e d en ia l, the re was sp ecu la ti on th atCo ng res s wo ul d

in va li da te th e Age 60 Ru le so on , all owi ng pi lo ts to fly bey on d t he ir 6 0t h b irt hd ay . Ave ra as ke d Un it edto granthi m an18 -m on th lea ve of abs en ce t o b rid ge th e g ap in hi s emplo ym en t fr om

th e p oi nthe tu rn ed60 to when , he h op ed , th e ru le wou ld be eli m in at ed . Uni te d a ga in sai d n o, ci ti ng it s p ol ic y to term in at e le av es of ab se nc e whe n api lo t turne d 6 0 years o ldan d was in el ig ib le to co nt inue servi ng as a p il otun de r th e Age 60 Ru le . W he n Av era turne d 6 0 years o ld , Uni te d fi redhi m . Fi ve m on th s l at er, Co ng res s p as se d t he Pil ot s Act , whi ch rai se d t he m an da to ry ret ire m en t ag e to 65 y ears ol d. Ave ra the n app li edfor

a pi lo t’s p os it io n wi thUni te d. He re cei ve d a n el ect ro ni c err orm es sa ge reject in g h is fir stap pl ic at io n b ecau se hi s “ an swe rs di d
no t s at is fy

m in im um requi rem en ts ” fo r th e p os it io n. Th e rea so n i t was reject edis th atAver a an swe redin th e n eg at iv e a que st io n abo utwhet he r he was abl e to fly in al l the co un tri es Uni te d s erv ed . A Unit edem pl oyee co nt act edhi m

a m on th lat er
an d a s a r es ul t o f th atco nv ers at io n, Av era f il le d o uta se co ndap pl ic at io n, wh ic h
was acce pt ed . After h is sec on d app li cat io n was fil edan d a ccep te d, Av era was pu t in Uni te d’s p il othi rin g que ue ; h e was be in g c on si de redfora pi lo t p os it io n u nt il Uni te d i ns ti tu te d ahi rin g fr eeze a co up le of m on th s l at er. Ave ra the n fi le d t wo l aws ui ts all eg in g s im il ar fa ct s an d m ak in g s im il ar 3cl ai m s. Th e fi rs t, wh ic h i s t he subjec t o f th is ap pe al , bro ug htcla im s ag ai ns t

Uni te d a ndth e fed eral de fen da nt s an d s ou gh t a d ecl arat ory jud gm en t tha t the Pi lo ts Act an d t he Age 6 0 R ul e were u nc on st itut io na l. Av era’s s eco ndlaws ui t cl ai m edth atth e u ni on th atrep res en te d h im vi ol at edth e ADEA, ERISA, and
co nt ractlaw. Th atsec on d l aws ui t al so so ug hta de cl arat ory jud gm en t tha t the Age 60 Ru le an d the Pil ot s Actwere u nc on st itut io na l. The go ve rn m en t i nt erv en edin th atcas e to de fen d the Age 6 0 R ul e an d t he Pil ot s Act
. Whi le th e fi rs t l aws ui t, the on e in vo lv edin th is ap pe al , was s ti ll pe nd in g t he di st ric t co urt d is m is se d u nd er Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) al l o f Ave ra’s cl ai m s i n t he sec on d la wsu itan d e nt eredjud gm en t ag ai ns t h im . W e aff irmed th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t o n e ve ry

is su e rai se d o n app eal in th atsec on d l aws ui t ex cep t fo r th e di sm is sa l o n t he m eri ts of Av era’s cl ai m s ch al le ng in g t he co ns ti tu ti on al it y of t he Age 60 Ru le . Averav. Ai rli ne Pil ot s As s’n In t’l, 4 36 F. App ’x 96 9, 9 73 –8 0 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 11 ) (u np ub li sh ed ). W e v acat edth atpa rt o f th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t
an d re m an de d wi th di rect io n fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o d is m is s t ha t cl ai m forlac k o f
subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on in st eadof o n t he m eri ts . W e d idso be cau se we co nc lu de d t ha t 4 9 U.S.C. § 46 11 0( a) g ran ts th e fed eral ap pe ll at e co urts ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w a fin al ord er o f th e FAA an d t ha t the Age 6 0 R ul e is
co ns id ereda “ fin al ord er.” Av era, 4 36 F. App ’x at 9 73
. 4Ourop in io n i n t he ap pe al of t ha t s eco ndlaws ui t was no t i ss ue d u nt il aft er

th e d is tri ctco urt i n t hi s fi rs t l aws ui t g ran te d t he fed eral de fen da nt s’ m ot io n t o di sm is s Av era’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t the m . The d is tri ctco urt the reaf te r gr an te d
su m m ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t Av era o n a ll of h is cla im s ag ai ns t Un it ed . This is Ave ra’s ap pe al fro m

th e jud gm en t ag ai ns t h im on all of t ho se cla im s. II. Ave ra co nt en ds th e m ag is tra te jud ge erre d i n d en y in g h is m ot io n t o c om pe l di sc ov ery. W e rev ie w a de ni al of am ot io n t o c om pe l d is co ve ry

on ly for ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Ho ll om anv. Ma il -Well C or p., 4 43 F.3d83 2, 8 37 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Fai lu re t o ra is e anis su e inth e d is tri ctco urt g en eral ly is fa ta l b ecau se we us ua ll y do no t co ns id er an is su e n otpa ss edup on be lo w. Irao la& CIA, S.A. v. Kim be rly-Cla rkCo rp ., 32 5 F .3d12 74 , 12 84 –8 5 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 3)
. The m ag is tra te jud ge de ni edAver a’s m ot io n t o c om pe l wi th ou t p reju di ce be cau se Aver a h adno t s ou gh t t o re so lv e h is di sc ov ery di sp ut e wit h Un it edbe fo re fil in g h is m ot io n. Se e Fed . R. Civ . P. 37 (a) (“ The m ot io n m us t i nc lu de a cert ifi cat io n t ha t the m ov an t h as in go odfai th co nf erre d o r at te m

pt edto co nf

er wit h t he pe rs on or p arty

fai li ng to m ak e d is cl os ur e o r di sc ov ery in aneffo rt t o ob ta in itwitho utco urt ac ti on .”). Ave ra co ul d h av e rei ns ta te d o r refi le d h is m ot io n to co m pe l af te r m ak in g a n e ffo rt t o re so lv e th e m at te r by con su lt in g wi th Uni te d
5ab ou t i t, b uthe ne ve r di d. Th ere was no ab us e o f di sc ret io n. III. Ave ra co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby den y in g h is un ti m el y m ot io n to am en d h is co m

pl ai ntfora se co ndti m e, bu t h e m ak es on ly con cl us ory st at em en ts witho utany

real arg um en t as to ho w th e d is tri ctco urt erred . There fo re, he ha s wai ve d t hi s i ss ue . See Gree nb ria r, Ltd . v. Ci ty of Alaba st er, 8 81 F.2d15 70 , 15 73 n.6 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ) (fi nd in g t ha t an is su e was waiv ed whe re the ap pe ll an t

“ el ab or at e[d ] no arg um en ts on th e m eri ts as t o t hi s i ss ue in it s i ni ti al
. . . br ie f”). IV. To the ex te ntAver a co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby gran ti ng th e fed eral de fen da nt s’ m ot io n t o d is m is s o n h is ADEA clai m ag ai ns t the m , th atals o is waiv edbe cau se he do es no t p res en t an y arg um en ts on th is is su e. See i d. V. Ave ra’s co nt en ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin no t s tri ki ng do wn t he Pi lo ts Act as un co ns ti tu ti on al is ba rredbe cau se it“ha s al read y be enli ti ga te d a nd
res ol ve d i n apri orpro ceed in g.” Pl em in g v . Uni ve rs al -Ru nd le Co rp ., 14 2 F .3d 13 54 , 13 59 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Co ll at eral est op pe l ap pl ie s o nl y if: (1 ) th e is su e atst ak e is id en ti cal to th e o ne in vo lv edin th e p rio r pr oc eed in g; (2) th e is su e was actua ll y li ti ga te d i n t he pri or pr oc eed in g; (3) th e d et erm in at io n o f th e is su e in th e p rio r li ti ga ti on 6m

us t h av e b een a cri ti cal an d n eces sary pa rt o f th e jud gm en t i n t he fir stact io n; an d (4 ) th e p arty ag ai ns t wh om

co ll at eral est op pe l i s as se rte d m

us t h av e h ada fu ll an d fa ir o pp ortuni ty to l it ig at e th e is su e in th e p rio r pr oc eed in g. Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . All o f th os e requi rem en ts are m ethe re. Ave ra p res se d t he same argu m en ts ag ai ns t the Pil ot s Act ’s con st itut io na li ty
—v io la ti on of t he Equ al Pro te ct io n, Du e Pro ces s, an d Tak in gs Claus es an d t he pr oh ib it io n a ga in stbi ll s o f at ta in de r—i n h is sec on d l aws ui t. The go ve rn m en t in te rv en edin th atlaws ui t. The di st ric t co urt en te redjud gm en t i n i t re jecti ng all of Ave ra’s arg um en ts an d d is m is si ng hi s cl ai m s i nv ol vi ng th e Pi lo ts Act, an d t hi s Co urt af firm edth atpa rt o f th e jud gm en t. Av era, 4 36 F. App ’x at 9 73 –7 8. Hav in g ha d aful l an d fa ir o pp ortu ni ty to l it ig at e th os e is su es , Aver a is co ll at eral ly
es to pp edfro m

arg ui ng th em

ag ai n h ere. 2

VI. Ave ra’s co nt en ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredwhen itrul edth atitdi d n ot ha ve subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w hi s ap pe al of a n F AA dec is io n d en y in g hi m anex em pt io n t o t he Age 6 0 R

ul e is witho utm eri t. See 49 U.S.C. § 4 61 10 (a) (p la ci ng ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w an F AA ord er wi th th e fed eral co urts of

Although the fede ral de fenda nts did not raise a c ollatera l estoppel defe nse ag ainst 2 Aver a’s Pilots Act claims in the district court, we may raise on our

own the pre clusive ef

fec t of an ea rlier judgment. Cmty . State Ba nk v. Strong, 651 F .3d 1241, 1261 n.17 (11th Cir. 2011).

7ap pe al ). 3 VII.

Ave ra co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin it s s umm ary jud gm en t ru li ng s on hi s v ari ou s Ag e Dis cri m in at io n i n Em pl oym en t Actcla im s. We revi ew de
no vo a di st ric t co urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t. Ho ll om an , 44 3 F .3dat 83 6. “ Su m

m ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te when th e ev id en ce, v ie wedin th e li gh t
m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov in g p arty , pre se nt s n o g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al fact
an d c om pe ls jud gm en t as a m at te r of law i n fa vo r of

th e m ov in g p arty .” Id . at 83 6– 37 . “ A gra ntof s umm ary jud gm en t m ay be up he ldon an y

ba si s s up po rte d b y th e rec or d.” Burto n v . Tam paHou s. Au th ., 27 1 F .3d12 74 , 12 77 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). All of Av era’s ADEA cla im s h av e in co m m on th e p rem is e th atan y act io n by Unit edba se d o n h is ag e was un la wfu l. The ADEA gen eral ly m ak es itun la wfu l fo r anem pl oyer to fai l t o h ire or t o d is ch arg e o r ot he rwis e d is cri m in at e ag ai ns t an y in di vi du al with re sp ectto th e co m pe ns at io n, t erm s, co nd it io ns , or p riv il eg es of
em pl oym en t, b ecau se of a n i nd iv idua l’s ag e. 29 U.S.C. § 6 23 (a)( 1) . An ADEA pl ai nt iff m us t p ro ve th atag e was th e “bu t fo r” caus e o f th e em pl oyer’s adv ers e de ci si on . Mor a v . Jac ks on Mem ’l Fou nd ., Inc ., 59 7 F .3d12 01 , 12 04 (11 th Cir
.
To the extent Avera

appea ls the denial of his motion to “strike down” the Ag e 60 Rule, 3 which the district cour

t rejec ted bec ause the Pilot s Act had r ender ed the r egulation and issue moot, we af

firm that dec ision as Avera has fa iled to establish that the district court er red. 820 10 ). An ADEA pl ai nt iff m us t al so pre se ntev id en ce o f an“ adve rs e em pl oym en t act io n,” whi ch is an“ul ti m at e em pl oym en t d eci si on , su ch as d is ch arg e o r fai lu re t o hi re, o r ot he r co nduc t tha t al te rs th e em pl oyee’s co m

pe ns at io n, t erm s, co nd it io ns , orpri vi le ge s o f em

pl oym en t, d ep riv es hi m

or h er o f em

pl oym en t o pp ortu ni ti es , or adve rs el y affe ct s h is or h er s ta tu s as anem pl oyee.” VanVoo rh is v. Hi ll sb or ou gh Cn ty. Bd . of C nt y . Comm ’rs, 51 2 F .3d12 96 , 13 00 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ta ti on
m ark s o m it te d) . Evenif apl ai nt iff m ak es a pr im a fac ie sh owi ng of d is cri m in at io n, th e em pl oyer m ay

pro ffera no nd is cri m in at ory reas on to reb utth atpre su m pt io n,
an d i n o rd er t o p rev ai l, a p la in ti ff m us t p ro ve th atth e p ro ffer edreas on“ was a pr et ex t t o m as k u nl awfu l d is cri m in at io n.” Sm it h v . J. Sm it h Lan ie r & Co ., 35 2 F.3 d 1 34 2, 1 34 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3)
. A. Ave ra ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin rul in g t ha t the Pil ot s Act pr ecl ud edhi s ADEA cla im ba se d o n t he term in at io n o f hi s emplo ym en t. Bu t the Pi lo ts Act cl earl y

st at es th at“ [a]n ac ti on tak enin co nf orm an ce wi th [th e Age 60 Ru le ] (as in effe ctbe fo re [t he Pil ot s Act ’s] en act m en t), m ay no t s erv e as a ba si s fo r li ab il it y

or r el ie f in a pr oc eed in g, b ro ug htun de r an y em pl oym en t l aw or reg ul at io n.” 49 U.S.C. § 4 47 29 (e)( 2) (em ph as is ad de d) . Uni te d’s ac ti on in te rm in at in g Av era’s em

pl oym en t was tak enin co nf orm an ce wi th th e Age 60 Ru le
9whi le th atrul e was st il l i n e ffec t. The co urt d idno t err. B. Ave ra ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby gran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t i n fav orof Un it edon hi s cl ai m th atUni te d’s re fu sa l t o g ran t h im a le av e o f ab se nc e vi ol at edth e ADEA. T he co urt fo un d t ha t Un it ed ’s po li cy of d en y in g alea ve of ab se nc e to pi lo ts aft er the y reac he d 6 0 years wa s an att em ptto co m pl y with t he Age 60 Ru le . Averado es no t co nt en d t ha t the di stric t was wron g abo utth at fin di ng . The d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly gran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Uni te d
on th is cla im . See Mo ra, 5 97 F.3dat 1 20 4. C. Ave ra ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t i n fav orof Un it edon hi s cl ai m th atUni te d v io la te d t he ADEA by no t re hi rin g h im

as a p il otfol lo win g t he en act m en t o f th e Pi lo ts Act. He as se rts th atth e rea so n h e was no t re hi redwas h is ag e. Ass um in g Av era e st ab li sh eda pr im a fac ie cas e o f di sc riminat io n, Un it edoff eredno nd is cri m in at ory

reas on s wh y

he was n otreh ire d: he was n otpu t i n the hi rin g que ue in it ia ll y be cau se he in co rrec tl y

fil le d o uthi s fir stap pl ic at io n, an d b y

th e ti m e h e co rrec te d t ha t erro r ina se co ndap pl ic at io n
an d h e was be in g c on si de redfor th e p os it io n, a h iri ng free ze was pu t i nt o e ffec t. Bec au se th ere i s n o e vi de nc e cre at in g age nu in e is su e ab ou t tho se fact s, the di st ric t 10co urt co rrec tl y gra nt edsu m

m ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t Av era o n t hi s ADEA cla im
.

D. Ave ra al so arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredin gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t h im

on hi s cl ai m

th atUni te d v io la te d t he ADEA by refu si ng to hi re h im

as a fl ig htsi m

ul at orin st ru ct or . Howev er, b ecau se itis un di sp ut edth atAver a n ev er ap pl ie d fo r su ch a po si ti on , he c an no t es tabl is h a ny “ adve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on ” by Unit ed . See VanVoo rh is , 51 2 F .3dat 1 30 0. Itfol lo ws tha t the re was no ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factpre cl ud in g s umm ary jud gm en t o n t hi s cl ai m . 4 VIII. Fi na ll y , Aver a co nt en ds th e d is tri ctco urt erredin gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of

Uni te d o n h is ADEA andERISA cl ai m s re ga rd in g c ert ai n di st rib ut io ns of Un it edsec ur it ie s an d o n h is ERISA cl ai m all eg in g a n i ll eg al
cu tb ackof i ns ur an ce b en efi ts . Becau se Aver a’s ADEA andERISA cl ai m s reg ard in g t he di st rib ut io ns of Un it edsec ur it ie s wer e n otrai se d i n h is am en de d
co m pl ai nt , th ey

are n otpro pe rly befo re thi s C ou rt. Se e Irao la& CIA, S.A., 32 5 F.3 d a t 1 28 4– 85 . In ad di ti on , Aver a h as ab an do ne d a ny clai m s re ga rd in g c ha ng es

Aver a also a sserts in passingthat United violated the AD EA by ref using to join him in 4 his FAA e x emption petition requestingthat he be e x empted fr om the Ag e 60 Rule, but a pa ssing ref ere nce is insuffic ient to preser ve an issue on a

ppeal. See Gre enbria

r, Ltd., 881 F.2d at 1573 n.6. 11to hi s re ti rem en t i ns ur an ce b en efi ts by fail in g t o m ak e a s uf fic ie ntarg um en t t o u s ab ou t the m . See Gree nb ria r, Ltd ., 88 1 F .2dat 1 57 3 n .6. AFFIRMED.

12