FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 19, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 94 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :0 8- cv -0 12 01 -ACC- KRS ROGER RITCHIE, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us INDUSTRIAL STEEL, INC., a Fl or id a Pro fitCo rp or at io n, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

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

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 19 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Ro ge r Ri tc hi e ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fav orof h is form er em

pl oyer, Indus tri al Ste el , inhi s emplo ym en t d is cri m in at io n act io n b ro ug htpu rs ua ntto th e Age Dis cri m in at io n i n Em pl oym en t Act(“ ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 6 23 (a)( 1) , andth e Fl or id a Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act, Fl a.St at . § 7 60 .10 . On ap pe al , Rit ch ie co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinco nc lu di ng th athe ha d n ot pr es en te d d ire ctev id en ce o f ag e d is cri m in at io n. Al te rn at iv el y , eve n i f hi s ca se is vi ewedas o ne in vo lv in g c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce, h e arg ue s t ha t s umm ary jud gm en t was in ap pr op ria te be cau se he sh owe d tha t In du st ria l St eel ’s reas on s fo r te rm in at in g h im

were p ret ex ts for

ag e d is cri m in at io n. Fo r th e rea so ns st at ed be lo w, we affi rm . I. In20 08 , Rit ch ie fil edanam en de d c om pl ai ntag ai ns t In du st ria l St eel rai si ng cl ai m s u nd er the ADEA, th e Fl or id a Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act, an d t he Em pl oyee Ret ire m en t In co m e Sec ur it y Act (“ ERISA”) . Rit ch ie ex pl ai ne d tha t h e was di sc riminat edag ai ns t an d h aras se d o n a cco un t o f hi s ag e whi le work in g a s a tru ck dr iv er fo r In du st ria l St eel , andul ti m at el y was fi redan d re pl acedby a y ou ng er worke r. Indus tri al Ste el m ov edforsu m m ary jud gm en t o n a ll of R it ch ie ’s cla im s. In du st ria l St eel is a st ru ctur al an d m is cel la ne ou s s te el fab ric at oran d e rect or . The co m pa ny con st ru ct s i nd iv idua l s te el co m po ne nt s fr om

arch it ectur al de si gn s, 2de li ve rs th e co m po ne nt s t o t he co ns tru ct io n s it e, an d e rect s t he co m po ne nt s acco rd in g t o t he de si gn pl an s. In du st ria l St eel ’s dai ly ope rat io ns are o ve rs een by it s g en eral m an ag er, J eff Weav er, an d i ts vi ce p res id en t, Fre d Wil so n. Ri tc hi e worke d a s a tru ckdri ve r fo r In du st ria l St eel . At th e ti m e o f hi s hi rin g, Ri tc hi e was 64 y ears ol d. Hi s i m m ed ia te supe rv is or s wer e Ro be rt Mac Cal la , th e p lantm an ag er, an d J oc el y n S hi nabarg er, the Pro du ct io n C on tro l Cl erk/Di sp at ch er. The sh op for em an , Ran da ll Ch an ey , als o h adth e au th or it y to gi ve in st ru ct io ns to Rit ch ie . Shi nabe rg er, Ch an ey , W il so n, an d Weav er al l co ul d im po se di sc ip li ne ontru ck

dri ve rs , bu t o nl y

W eav er an d Wil so n h adth e au th or it y to fir e driv ers . In du st ria l St eel ’s pl an t ru le s s etforth a pr og res si ve di sc ip li ne po li cy th at di vi de d v io la ti on s i nt o t wo ca te go rie s. Offe ns es inCat eg ory I in cl ud edth eft , in subo rd in at io n, p os se ss io n o f al co ho l o r drug s, v io la ti on s o f sa fety rul es , and di so rd erl y

co nduc t o f an y

ki nd , “ su ch as f

ig ht in g, ro ug hh ou si ng , or any oth er act iv ity da ng ero us to li fe, l im

b, o r pr op erty , or d is rupt iv e inna tu re.” Anem pl oyee was subjec t t o i m

m ed ia te di sc ha rg e fo r co m m it ti ng a Cat eg ory

I vi ol at io n. Offen se s i n C at eg ory

II in cl ud edtar di ne ss , un ex cu se d abs en ces , st op pi ng work be fo re b reakti m e o r qu it ti ng ti m e, le av in g o r en te rin g aworkareawitho ut pe rm is si on , fai lu re t o c le an -up t he workarea , andun au th or iz edop erat io n o f 3m ach in ery. An em pl oyee wou ldrece iv e a wri tt enwarn in g fo r a fi rs t Ca te go ry II of fen se , andwou ldbe subjec t t o apa y cu t, t im e o ff wit ho utpay , or i m m ed ia te di sc ha rg e fo r a s eco ndoff en se . W eav er ex pl ai ne d tha t the co m pa ny didno t fo ll ow it s p ro gr es si ve di sc ip li ne po li cy inev ery cas e. Ri tc hi e st at edth atot he r em pl oyees a ndsupe rv is or s fr eque nt ly call edhi m de ro ga to ry

na m es on acco un t o f hi s ag e. W eav er re ferr edto Rit ch ie as an “ ol d m an ” ev ery ti m e th ei r pa th s cr os se d. Onon e o r two oc cas io ns , W il so n m ad e rem ark s ab ou t Ri tc hi e’s ag e, bu t Ri tc hi e u nd ers to odth atW il so n was jok in g. Oth er em pl oyees a ndsupe rv is or s ca ll edRit ch ie na m es su ch as “ sn ow- cro pp er,”

“ ol d s ch oo l,” “ ol d m ot he r fu ck er,” “ ol d b as ta rd ,” “ ol d s on of abi tc h,” bu t tho se in di vi du al s wer e n otin vo lv edin th e d eci si on to term in at e Ri tc hi e. As fu rth er ev id en ce o f ag e d is cri m in at io n, Ri tc hi e ex pl ai ne d t ha t a young er driv er was gi ve n be tt er ro ut es an d a ss ig nm en ts . Ri tc hi e’s supe rv is or s i nd ic at edth atth ere wer e v ari ou s s ho rtc om in gs with hi s jo b p erfo rm an ce. Am on g o th er thi ng s, Ri tc hi e fre qu en tl y di srup te d h is co -wo rk ers with “ ex ces si ve ch at te r.” He n eed edm or e ti m e to pe rfo rm tas ks th an ot he r dr iv ers who work edforth e co m pa ny. W il so n re cei ve d s ev eral co m pl ai nt s fro m cu st om ers th atRit ch ie was u nabl e to ba ckhi s t rai le r in to th e d es ire d lo cat io n. Cu st om ers als o s ta te d t ha t Ri tc hi e was di st ract in g t he ir e m pl oyees b y 4en ga gi ng th em in co nv ers at io n. Ch an ey st at edth athe ob se rv edRit ch ie sl eep in g in hi s t ru ckon at l eas t thr ee o ccas io ns . Once, R it ch ie rece iv eda writ te n re pr im an d fo r fai li ng to ti e d own a lo adof s te el aft er Ch an ey ha d i ns tru ct edhi m

to do so . Mac Cal la , Cha ne y , andSh in ab arg er al l s ta te d tha t the y ve rb al ly repri m an de d Ri tc hi e co nc ern in g h is workpe rfo rm an ce an d h is ex ces si ve tal ki ng , bu t Ri tc hi e co ul d n otreca ll any on e fro m m an ag em en t s pe ak in g t o h im ab ou t h is job pe rfo rm an ce. On o ne oc cas io n, s om eo ne ask edRit ch ie if h e h adbe ensl eep in g i n hi s t ru ck , andhe res po nd edth athe ha d b een on hi s l un chbre ak . One m orni ng , Cha ne y

in st ru ct edRit ch ie to tra ns po rt a70 -fo otst eel be am fro m th e fro ntof the sh op to th e b ackof the sh op . Whe n R it ch ie was i n p os it io n to ba ckup th e tr ai le r, he ask edon e o f th e lo ad ers , Curti s, t o s ta ndbe hi ndhi s t ru ck an d s po t h im

so th athe wou ldno t h ita co nc ret e wal l atth e rea r of th e fac il it y . Ri tc hi e b ack edup th e truc k a ndst op pe d wh enCu rti s i ns tru ct edhi m to do so . He ex it edth e truc k a ndob se rv edth atth e b eam was 1 5 fe etaway

fro m th e wal l. Ri tc hi e as ke d C urti s i f he sh ou ldlea ve th e truc k h oo ke d up t o t he tra il er. Cu rti s was no t s ur e, so he wentto askRit ch ie ’s qu es ti onto a supe rv is or . At th atpo in t, Ri tc hi e le ft t he sce ne in ord er t o d o s om ethi ng els e. Whe n h e returne d t wo o r th ree h ou rs lat er, h e d is co ve redth atth e truc k h ad“ sk id de d b ack ” an d t ha t “ th e wall was d own .” Ch an ey ass um edth atRit ch ie ha d h itth e wal l, b utth ere wer e n o

5witne ss es who saw h im do so . The wall in ci de ntoc cu rredon a Tue sd ay . Rit ch ie was abs en t fr om workon W edne sd ay

an d Th ur sd ay

inord er t o u nd erg o anu cl ear s tre ss tes t. Whenhe returne d t o t he off

ic e o n F rid ay , MacC al lato ldhi m th athe ha d t o c ho os e b etween res ig ni ng or b ei ng fir ed . Whe n R it ch ie ask edwhy, Mac Cal lares po nd ed , “ he ll o; th e wal l.” Ri tc hi e ref

us edto res ig n, s o M acC al laco m pl et eda te rm in at io n n ot ic e th atst at edth atRit ch ie was b ei ng fir edforhi tt in g t he wall . MacC al lath ento ld Ri tc hi e to gi ve th e n ot ic e to W il so n. Aft er Wils onreadth e te rm in at io n n ot ic e, he st at ed , “ th is do es n’t re al ly m ak e se ns e to m e,” an d h e st at edth athe wou ld in ve st ig at e th e wal l i nc id en t. Wils on in st ru ct edRit ch ie to return t o h is off ic e o n Mo nd ay m orni ng . Whe n R it ch ie returne d o n M on da y , W il so n t ol d h im , “ y ou ’re a go od em pl oyee an d you ’re an ex cel le ntdri ve r bu t I h av e to go with t he de ci si on of co rp or at e an d tha t i s t o l ety ougo .” W il so n c om pl et eda se co ndterm in at io n n ot ic e th atst at edth atRit ch ie was b ei ng term in at ed“ du e to no n- pe rfo rm an ce an d di srup ti on of o th er em

pl oyees.” W il so n e xp la in edth athe de ci de d t o fi re Ri tc hi e ba se d o n h is lac k o f pe rfo rm an ce an d h is “ co ns ta ntch at ti ng th ro ug ho utth e en ti re co m pa ny.” He reach edhi s d eci si on aft er co ns ul ti ng with h is lo wer-l ev el supe rv is or s, Sh in ab erg er, Ch an ey , andMac Cal la , who to ldhi m th atRit ch ie ’s 6pe rfo rm an ce was lac ki ng . W il so n i ni ti al ly test ifi edth atRit ch ie was t erm in at ed

bo th forth e wal l i nc id en t an d fo r hi s p erfo rm an ce p ro bl em s, b uthe lat er cl ari fie d th atth e wal l i nc id en t fa ct or edin to Rit ch ie ’s term in at io n fr om Mac Cal la ’s pe rs pe ct iv e b utno t fr om

hi s o wn p ers pe ct iv e. Ri tc hi e b el ie ve d t ha t h e was term in at edbe cau se th e co m pa ny was co nc ern edab ou t h is ag e an d h eal th co nd it io n. He n ot edth athe ha d b een fir ed imm ed ia te ly after t ak in g t wo d ay s o ff o f work i n o rd er t o g eta nu cl ear s tre ss tes t. Ri tc hi e b el ie ve d t ha t Weave r, who freque nt ly referre d t o h im as a n o ldm an , was in st ru m en ta l i n t he de ci si on to term in at e h im . Indus tri al Ste el hi reda y ou ng er in di vi du al to rep la ce Ri tc hi e. The di stric t co urt g ran te d In du st ria l St eel ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Fi rs t, the co urt co nc lu de d t ha t Ri tc hi e h adno t p res en te d d ire ctev id en ce o f ag e di sc riminat io n b ecau se th e v ari ou s d ero ga to ry rem ark s t ha t h e id en ti fie d wer e n ot rel at edto th e d eci si on to term in at e h is em pl oym en t. Fo r ex am

pl e, th ere was no ev id en ce tha t a d eci si on m ak er s ta te d t ha t Ri tc hi e was to o o ldto workat the co m pa ny. Inad di ti on , th e co urt co nc lu de d tha t the co m m en ts di d n otrefl ecta bl at an t d is cri m in at ory

an im us ag ai ns t Ri tc hi e o n a cco un t o f hi s ag e. The di stric t co urt al so co nc lu de d t ha t Ri tc hi e h adno t p res en te d ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n. Th e co urt d et erm in edth atRit ch ie ha d 7es tabl is he d a pr ima fa ci ecas e u nd er McDo nn el l Do ug la s C or p. v. Gr een , 41 1 U.S. 79 2, 9 3 S .Ct. 1 81 7, 3 6 L.Ed .2d66 8 (1 97 3) . The co urt al so co nc lu de d t ha t In du stria l St eel ha d o ffer eda le gi ti m at e, no n- di sc riminat ory reas on for

term in at in g Ri tc hi e—n am el y , th athi s wo rkpe rfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt . W it h re ga rdto th e th irdst ep of McDo nn el l Do ug la s , th e d is tri ctco urt de te rm in edth atRit ch ie ha d fa il edto de m on st rat e th atIndus tri al Ste el ’s reas on for te rm in at in g h im

was apre te xtforag e d is cri m in at io n. Th e co urt s ta te d t ha t In du stria l St eel ha d fo ll owe d i ts pro gr es si ve di sc ip li ne po li cy inRit ch ie ’s cas e be cau se Rit ch ie alr eady

ha d re cei ve d o ne pe rfo rm an ce ci ta ti on , and , un de r th e po li cy , th e co m

pa ny cou ldfir e h im

imm ed ia te ly onc e h e co m m it te d asec on d vi ol at io n. Th eref

or e, th e co urt re as on ed , if In du st ria l St eel be li ev ed , eve n erro ne ou sl y , th atRit ch ie ha d kno ck eddo wn t he wall , th atwou ldha ve be ena su ffi ci en t re as on to fir e h im . The co urt n ot edth atRit ch ie ha d n otdi sp ut edth athe ta lk eda lo t, d is rupt edot he r em pl oyees, an d s le pton th e job . The di stric t co urt al so ex pl ai ne d t ha t In du st ria l St eel ha d n otoff ered in co ns is te ntreas on s fo r Ri tc hi e’s te rm in at io n. Th e co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t the two te rm in at io n n ot ic es refl ect ed“ th e st ag es of t he de ci si on -m ak in g p ro ces s an d t wo le ve ls of d eci si on -m ak ers .” The c ou rt o bs erv edth atitwas re as on ab le to ex pe ct th atW il so n, a v ic e p res id en t, wo ul d h av e p ro vi de d am or e co m pl et e rea so n fo r 8Ri tc hi e’s te rm in at io n a fte r co ns id eri ng th e inpu t o f a l owe r-l ev el supe rv is or .

Fi na ll y , th e co urt d en ie d R it ch ie ’s ERISA cl ai m be cau se he ha d n otpre se nt edan y ev id en ce tha t In du st ria l St eel term in at edhi m inord er t o i nt erfe re wi th hi s b en efi ts un de r anERISA p la n. II. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo . W eeks v. Harde n Mf

g. Co rp . , 29 1 F .3d13 07 , 13 11 (11 thCir . 20 02 ) . W e vi ew th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on -m ov in g p arty , anddra w al l re as on ab le in fere nc es in fav orof t ha t p arty . Id. Summ ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te “ if the pl ead in gs , th e d is co ve ry an d d is cl os ur e m at eri al s o n fi le , and an y affi da vi ts sh ow t ha t the re i s n o g enui ne is su e as to an y m at eri al factan d t ha t th e m ov an t i s en ti tl edto a jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.” Fe d.R .Civ .P. 56 (c)( 2) . The ADEA pro hi bi ts anem pl oyer fro m

di sc riminat in g a ga in stanem pl oyee who is at l eas t 4 0 years o ldonth e b as is of a ge . 29 U.S.C. §§ 62 3( a)(1 ), 63 1( a). The Flo rid a Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act s im il arl y pro hi bi ts di sc riminat io n o n t he ba si s o f ag e. Fl a. St at . § 7 60 .10 . Clai m s u nd er the Flo rid a Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act ar e an al y zedun de r th e sa m e an al yti cal fram ewo rkas c la im s b ro ug htun de r th e ADEA. Za be n v . Air Pro du ct s &Ch emic al

s, In c. , 12 9 F .3d14 53 , 14 55 n. 2 (11 thCir . 19 97 ).

9“ A pl ai nt iff m ay est ab li sha cl ai m

of i ll eg al ag e d is cri m in at io n t hr ou gh ei th er d ire ctev id en ce o r ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce.” Van Voo rh is v. Hil ls bo ro ugh Co un tyBd. o

f Co un tyCo mm’rs , 51 2 F .3d12 96 , 13 00 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Direc t ev id en ce i s “ ev id en ce tha t re fle ct s ‘a di sc riminat ory or r et al ia to ry

att itud e co rrel at in g t o t he di sc riminat io n o r ret al ia ti on co m pl ai ne d o f by the em

pl oyee.’ ” Id. (qu ot in g W

il so n v . B/E Aero sp ac e, In c. , 37 6 F .3d10 79 , 10 86 (11 th Cir . 20 04 )).

“ [O]nly the m os t b la ta ntrem ark s, wh os e in te ntco ul d b e n ot hi ng ot he r th anto di sc riminat e o n t he ba si s o f ag e . . . con st itut e d ire ctev id en ce o f ag e di sc riminat io n.” Id. (quo ti ng Ca rt er v. Cit y o f Mi ami , 87 0 F .2d57 8, 5 82 (11 th Ci r. 19 89 )) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ). Dis cri m in at ory rem ark s d o n otco ns ti tu te di rectev id en ce i f th ey

were n otrel at edto th e ch al le ng edem pl oym en t ac ti on or were n otm ad e b y

th e d eci si on m ak er. Stan da rd v. A.B.E.L. Se rv ic es , Inc ., 16 1 F.3 d 1 31 8, 1 33 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) . Here, Ri tc hi e fai le d t o p res en t d ire ctev id en ce o f ag e d is cri m in at io n. Ri tc hi e id en ti fie d t wo d eci si on m ak ers : Wils on an d Weav er. W eav er fre qu en tl y refe rredto Rit ch ie as a n “ ol d m an ,” an d Wil so n a ls o re fere nc edRit ch ie ’s age on on e o r two oc cas io ns . Neverth el es s, Ri tc hi e d idno t d em on st rat e th atth os e rem ark s wer e rel at edto th e d eci si on to term in at e h is em pl oym en t. Fo r ex am

pl e, he di d n otsh ow t ha t Wils on or Weav er h adst at ed , “ fir e Ri tc hi e b ecau se he is to o 10ol d,” or “ Ri tc hi e is to o o ldto workas atru ckdri ve r.” Se e Van Voo rh is , 51 2 F .3d

at13 00 (ho ld in g t ha t d eci si on m ak er’s s ta te m en ts th athe “ di dn ’t wantto hi re an y ol d p il ot s” was d ire ctev id en ce o f ag e d is cri m in at io n) . Becau se W il so n’s an d W eav er’s co m

m en ts were n otco nn ect edto th e d eci si on to term in at e Ri tc hi e, th os e co m m en ts are n otdi rectev id en ce o f ag e d is cri m in at io n. Se e Van Voo rh is , 51 2 F.3 d a t 1 30 0. Th e o th er d is cri m in at ory rem ark s i de nt ifi edby Ritc hi e d o n ot co ns ti tu te di rectev id en ce b ecau se th ey were n otm ad e b y

th e d eci si on m ak ers . Se e Sta nd ar d , 16 1 F .3dat 1 33 0. Thu s, the di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y co nc lu de d t ha t Ri tc hi e h adno t p res en te d d ire ctev id en ce o f ag e d is cri m in at io n. III. As n ot edab ov e, we rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , vi ewin g t he ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on -m ov in g p arty . Se e W eeks , 29 1 F .3dat 1 31 1. We us e th e McDo nn el l Do ug la s bu rd en -s hi fti ng fram ewo rk

to ev al ua te ADEA clai m s t ha t ar e b as edup on cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce. Ch ap man v. AI Tra ns

po rt , 22 9 F .3d10 12 , 10 24 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) ( en ba nc ). The pl ai nt iff m us t fi rs t es tabl is h a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f ag e d is cri m in at io n. Id. The bu rd enof p ro du ct io n t he n s hi fts to th e em pl oyer to off

er a l eg it im at e, no nd is cri m in at ory

reas on for

th e ch al le ng edem

pl oym en t ac ti on . Id. The p la in ti ff m us t the n s ho w th atth e p ro ffer edno nd is cri m in at ory reas onm erel y

is a pr et ex t fo r 11un la wfu l ag e d is cri m in at io n. Id.

The pl ai nt iff

m ay de m on st rat e th atanem

pl oyer’s reas on is pre te xtua l b y id en ti fy in g “ su ch weakne ss es , im pl au si bi li ti es , in co ns is te nc ie s, i nc oh eren ci es or co nt rad ic ti on s i n t he em

pl oyer’s pro ffer edleg it im at e rea so ns forit s ac ti on s t ha t a reas on ab le fact fin de r co ul d fi ndth em un worth y

of c red en ce.” Co mbs v. Pla nt at io n Pa tt erns , 10 6 F .3d15 19 , 15 38 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Rat he r th an“ si m

pl y qu arre li ng with t he wis do m of [ th e em

pl oyer’s] reas on ,” th e pl ai nt iff “ m us t m eetth atreas onha d o n a ndreb utit .” Ch ap man , 22 9 F .3dat 1 03 0.

“ The in qu iry int o p ret ex t ce nt ers on th e em pl oyer’s bel ie fs , no t the em pl oyee’s be li efs .” Alva re

z v. Ro ya l At la nt ic Devel op er

s, In c. , 61 0 F .3d12 53 , 12 66 (11 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Whe n an e m

pl oyer ass ert s t ha t i t fi redth e p la in ti ff fo r po or pe rfo rm an ce, i t i s n oten ou gh forth e p la in ti ff t o s ho w th athi s p erfo rm an ce was sa ti sf act ory . Id. Rathe r, he m

us t d em on st rat e th atth e em pl oyer di d n otbe li ev e th athi s p erfo rm an ce was lac ki ng , andm erel y us edth atcla im

“ as co ve r fo r di sc riminat in g a ga in st[hi m ] onacco un t o f [h is ag e].” Id. A pl ai nt iff

m ay est ab li sh pre te xtby dem on st rat in g t ha t the em pl oyer ha s of fere d i nc on si st en t re as on s fo r th e ch al le ng edem pl oym en t ac ti on . Ti dw el l v. Ca rt er Pro du ct s , 13 5 F .3d14 22 , 14 28 (11 thCir . 19 98 ). Neve rth el es s, the factth at th e em pl oyer off

ers anad di ti on al reas on forth e em pl oym en t d eci si on do es no t 12su gg es t p ret ex t i f bo th of t he em pl oyer’s reas on s ar e co ns is te nt . Id. A pl ai nt iff

als o c ande m on st rat e p ret ex t b y sh owi ng th atth e d eci si onm ak er m ad e d is cri m in at ory

rem ark s. Se e Damo n v . Flemi ng Su pe rma rk et s o f Flor id a, In c. , 19 6 F .3d13 54 , 13 62 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (h ol di ng th atsupe rv is or ’s st at em en t th athe want ed“ ag gr es si ve , yo un g m en ” li ke hi m se lf t o b e p ro m ot edwas “ hi gh ly su gg es ti ve cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce” o f ag e d is cri m in at io n) . Suc h re m ark s ar e ev id en ce o f pr et ex t b ecau se th ey sh edli gh t o n t he de ci si on m ak er’s s ta te of m in d atth e ti m e th athe m ad e th e ch al le ng edem pl oym en t d eci si on . Id. On the ot he r ha nd , stray rem ark s t ha t ar e “ is ol at edan d u nr el at edto th e ch al le ng edem pl oym en t de ci si on ” are in su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh pre te xt . Se e Roj as v. Flo ri da , 28 5 F .3d 13 39 , 13 42 -4 3 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 2) (supe rv is or ’s st at em en t tha t an ot he r em pl oyee di d no t d es erv e h er job be cau se sh e was a wom anwas n otsu ffi ci en t t o s ho w pre te xt ). A pl ai nt iff

canals o s ho w pre te xtby dem on st rat in g t ha t the em pl oyer di d n ot fo ll ow i ts no rm al pro cedur es interm in at in g h is em pl oym en t. Se e Mor riso n v . Boo th , 76 3 F .2d13 66 , 13 74 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ) (“ Dep artur es fro m no rm al pro cedur es m ay be su gg es ti ve of d is cri m in at io n.” ). Oth er ci rcu it s h av e ex pl ai ne d t ha t, wh en anem pl oyer ha s es tabl is he d apro gr es si ve di sc ip li ne po li cy , a pl ai nt iff m ay es tabl is h p ret ex t b y

sh owi ng th atth e p ol ic y

was n otfol lo wedinhi s ca se . Se e Mor ris v. Cit

y o f Ch il li co th e , 51 2 F .3d10 13 , 10 20 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8) (“ Dev ia nc e 13fro m

a pr og res si ve di sc ip li ne po li cy canbe ev id en ce o f pr et ex t” ). Neve rth el es s, i f m an ag em en t h as di sc ret io n a s t o wh ethe r to fol lo w th e d is ci pl in e p ol ic y , th ena fai lu re t o fo ll ow t he po li cy do es no t s ho w pre te xt . Se e id. (ho ld in g t ha t em pl oyer’s fai lu re t o fo ll ow i ts di sc ip li ne po li cy di d n otsupp ort a f

in di ng of pr et ex t b ecau se th e em

pl oyer sp eci fic al ly reserve d t he rig htto fir e at -wil l em pl oyees wi th ou t a p rio r writ te n warni ng ); Fan e v. Lo cke Rey no ld s, LL P , 48 0 F.3 d 5 34 , 54 1 (7 th Cir . 20 07 ) (h ol di ng th atpl ai nt iff co ul d n otest ab li sh pre te xt ba se d o n e m

pl oyer’s fai lure t o fo ll ow i ts di sc ip li ne po li cy be cau se th e p la in ti ff d id no t o fferan y

ev id en ce tha t the po li cy

was “ rig or ou sl y

en fo rced ,” an d b ecau se th e po li cy co nt em pl at edimm ed ia te term in at io n fo r certa in off en se s) . Inth is cas e, Ri tc hi e fai le d t o e st ab li sh pre te xt . Firs t, In du st ria l St eel di d n ot gi ve in co ns is te ntor s hi fti ng reas on s fo r Ri tc hi e’s te rm in at io n. Onth e Fri da y aft er th e wal l i nc id en t, Ma cCa ll a co m pl et eda te rm in at io n n ot ic e in di cat in g t ha t Ri tc hi e was be in g fi redforhi tt in g t he wall . After afurth er i nv es ti ga ti on , W il so n i ss ue d a se co ndno ti ce i nd ic at in g t ha t Ri tc hi e was be in g t erm in at edforpe rfo rm an ce i ss ue s. As the di st ric t co urt o bs erv ed , th e two term in at io n n ot ic es si m pl y refl ectdi ffer en t st ag es of t he de ci si on -m ak in g p ro ces s. Th e fac t tha t Wils on ch an ge d t he reas on fo r te rm in at in g R it ch ie aft er fu rth er i nv es ti ga ti on do es no t s ho w pre te xt . Ri tc hi e co nt en ds th athi s al le ge d p erfo rm an ce i ss ue s co ul d n otha ve be en 14th e cau se of h is term in at io n b ecau se th e o nl y pe rs on th atW il so n s po ke to be fo re co m pl et in g t he sec on d t erm in at io n n ot ic e was Mac Cal la , who co ns id eredRit ch ie to be a go odem

pl oyee. W il so n t es ti fie d, h owe ve r, th athe als o s po ke with Sh in ab arg er an d C ha ne y , andth atth ey in fo rm edhi m

th atRit ch ie ’s per fo rm an ce was subs ta nd ard . Thu s, Wils on was a ware t ha t Ri tc hi e’s supe rv is or s h adis su es with h is pe rfo rm an ce b efo re h e m ad e th e d eci si on to term in at e Ri tc hi e. Altho ug h R it ch ie ass ert edth atm an ag em en t n ev er s po ke with h im reg ard in g hi s jo b p erfo rm an ce, h e d idno t d ire ct ly dis pu te Indus tri al Ste el ’s ass ert io ns th athe di st ract edot he r em

pl oyees t hr ou gh “ ex ces si ve ch at te r” o r to okto o l on g t o p erfo rm ta sk s. In du st ria l St eel als o p res en te d e vi de nc e th atso m e cu st om ers co m pl ai ne d ab ou t Ri tc hi e’s pe rfo rm an ce. Alt ho ug h R it ch ie ex pl ai ne d tha t the co m pl ai nt s were m eri tl es s, h e d idno t d is pu te th e fac t tha t the y were re cei ve d. If I ndus tri al St eel be li ev ed , eve n e rro ne ou sl y , th atRit ch ie ’s workpe rfo rm an ce was lac ki ng , th enth e co m

pa ny hada no n- di sc riminat ory reas on to term in at e Ri tc hi e’s em pl oym en t. Se e Alv ar ez , 61 0 F .3dat 1 26 6. Inad di ti on , Rit ch ie can no t s ho w pre te xtba se d o n t he vario us de ro ga to ry co m m en ts ab ou t h is ag e. Mo stof t he rem ark s t ha t Ri tc hi e ci te d wer e m ad e b y em pl oyees o r supe rv is or s wh o d idno t p la y a ro le inth e d eci si on to term in at e h im . W it h re sp ectto st at em en ts m ad e b y th e d eci si on m ak ers , Rit ch ie tes ti fie d t ha t 15W eav er fre qu en tl y refe rredto hi m

as “ ol d m an ,” an d t ha t Wils onm ad e co m m en ts ab ou t h is ag e o n o ne or t wo o ccas io ns . As no te d abo ve , Rit ch ie di d n otli nkth os e st at em en ts to th e d eci si on to term in at e h is em pl oym en t. The re was no ev id en ce th atW eav er o r W il so n e xp res se d apre fere nc e fo r y ou ng er em pl oyees o r be li ev ed th atRit ch ie co ul d n otpe rfo rm th e job be cau se of h is ag e. Se e Damo n , 19 6 F .3dat 13 62 (co nc lu di ng th atem pl oyer’s comm en t ab ou t wan ti ng “ ag gr es si ve , yo un g m en ” to be pro m ot edwas c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce o f ag e d is cri m in at io n) . W eav er’s an d Wil so n’s g en eral refe ren ces to Rit ch ie ’s age do no t cr eat e a g enui ne is su e o f fac t as to whet he r ag e was th e rea l re as on forhi s t erm in at io n. Fi na ll y , eve n a ss um in g t ha t the co m pa ny didno t co m

pl y with i ts pr og res si ve di sc ip li ne po li cy interm in at in g R it ch ie , W eav er t es ti fie d tha t the po li cy was n otfol lo wedin ev ery cas e. Ther efo re, the co m pa ny’ s fa il ur e to co nf orm to th e p ol ic y

in Rit ch ie ’s cas e d oe s n otest ab li shpre te xt . Se e Mo rr is , 51 2 F.3 d a t 1 02 0; Fan e , 48 0 F .3dat 5 41 . Becau se Rit ch ie di d n otest ab li sh th at In du stria l St eel ’s con cern s ab ou t h is job pe rfo rm an ce were pre te xtua l, the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly gran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Indus tri al Ste el on hi s ag e di sc riminat io n c la im s u nd er the ADEA andth e Fl or id a Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act. 1 On appe al, Ritchie does not cha lleng e the de nial of his ERI SA claim or the de nial of his 1 motion for rec onsideration. See Acc ess Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co. , 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004) (notingthat issues not raised on a ppeal a re de emed a

bandoned) . 16Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm .

AFFIRMED.

17