FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J ULY 24, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 08- 1054 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-02546 -CV -O DE -1 GLENN L . BASS, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, d.b .a. Lock he edMart in Aero naut ic s C om pa ny, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 24 , 200 8) Be fo re CA RN E S, W IL SO N and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:The district cour t found that the ADAand ADE A discrimination claims wer e time- 1 barr ed. We have chosen, how ever , to addre ss the merits of these c laims, and find ample r eason to affir m. See U nited States v. Al-Arian , 5 14 F .3 d 1 18 4, 11 89 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 8) (p e r c ur iam) (“[W] e may aff

irm for any rea son supported by the re cord, e ven if not re lied upon by the district court.” (interna l quotation marks omitted)). 2 G le nn B as s a

ppe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t t o hi s fo rm er e m plo y er , L oc khe ed

Mart in C or

p. ( “ L oc khe ed ”) , a s to his c om pla int alleging wrongful term ination under the Am ericans with Disabilities Act (“ AD A” ), 42 U. S. C. § 121 01, et seq. , the A ge Discr im ination in Em ploym ent Act (“ A D E A ”) , 29 U . S. C. § 62 1, e t se q. , and r et al iatio n f or his use of

f am ily and m edical leave under the F am ily and Medical L eave A ct (“ FML A” ), 29 U. S. C. § 261 5(a)( 1). Beca

use Bass fails to provide sufficient evidence showing th at L oc khe ed ’ s r ed

uc tio n inf

or ce ( “ RI F” ) w as pr et ex tua l f or an un de rl y ing di sc riminat ory

an im us , or t ha t t he term in at io n was ret al ia to ry fortak in g F MLA le av e, w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt. 1 W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o. Rojas v. F lor ida , 285 F . 3d 1 339, 134 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) ( pe r curi am). S um m ar y j udgm en t is p ro pe r unde r Fe d. R. Ci v. P . 56( c) w he n th er e is n o ge nui ne iss ue a s to any m at eri al factan d t he m ov in g p art y is en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. Ce lotexv . Ca tre tt , 477 U . S. 317 , 322 , 106 S . Ct . 254 8, 255 2, 91 L . E d. 2d 2 65 (1 986) . T o surv ive am oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t, the non m ovi ng p ar ty m ust3

sh ow t ha t t he re i s a g en ui ne is su e o f factfortri al . Co tto n v . Crac ke r B arr el O ld Countr y Store, Inc. , 434 F . 3d 1 227, 123 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) . W e vie w“ the ev ide nc e an d a ll re as ona

ble inf er en ce s dr awn f

ro m it in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the nonm ovin g party .” B att le v . B oard of R egen ts f

or G a. , 468 F . 3d 7 55, 759 (11th Cir. 2006) (per c uriam). I. A D A D isc rim ina tio n Ba ss a lle ge s th at

L oc khe ed

dis cr im inate d a ga ins t hi m on the ba sis of

his m orbi d o be si ty, ob st ru ct iv e sl eep ap ne a, hypert en si on , andde pr es si on di sabi li ti es . The A DAprohibit s an em ploy er f rom discrim inating against a qualified indiv idual on the ba sis of

adis ab ili ty . 42 U . S. C. § 12 112. W e ap ply the lawde ve lop ed

in Tit le VII, ADEA, an d ADA cas es in te rch an ge ab ly. P en nin gto n v . Ci tyof H unt sv ille , 26 1 F .3d12 62 , 12 69 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Ba ss m ay avoi d sum

m ar y j udgm en t i n on e of

tw o w ay s. B as s m ay

r el y on the tr ad iti ona l f

ram ew ork and u se dir ec t e vid en ce to cr eate atr ia ble iss ue on whe th er h e was fir edor t reat edles s fa vo rab ly becau se he was d is ab le d. See Morris v. E

mory Clinic, Inc. , 40 2 F .3d10 76 , 10 81 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m ).

“ Dire ct evidence is evidence, that, if believed, proves the existence of a f act without inference or pr esum ption .” Id. (a lte ratio ns and i nte rn al quo tatio n m ar ks om itted). A lte rn at ive ly , Ba ss m ay use c ir cum stanti al e vid en ce and r el y on theBa ss attempts to li nk Mutuku to the decision maker , Mike Altomare, by saying that 2 Altomare c onsulted with Mutuku and relied on Mutuku’s pre vious perfor mance evaluations. (Initial Brief

at 19.) B ass submits no evidence, how ever , showingthat Altomare r elied upon Mutuku in thi s fashion or wa s otherwise involved in the te rmination of B ass. Indeed, Mutuku expressly denied be ing involved in B ass’s ter mination. (R2-68, Tab H, Mutuku De cl. ¶¶6- 7.) B e fo re a dd

re ssi ngthe a lle g e d c omm e nts , s ome c onte xt is n e c e ssa ry . D ue to h is o be sity 3 condition, Ba ss reque sted and wa s g rante d leave pursuant to L ockhee d’s FMLA Policy over the last sever al year s of employ ment. In September 2003, B ass re quested a nd was grante d a one- y ear medical lea

ve to par ticipate in an inpatient we ight loss study in New Yor

k. Ba ss used a combination of F MLA leave , vaca tion tim e, and unpa id personal business lea ve to cove r the absenc e. B ass brief

ly returne d to work in Novembe r 2004, but soon there afte r re quested two a dd iti on a l mo nth s o f l e ave fo r m e dic a l atte nti on us inga c omb inatio n o f v a c atio n ti me and un pa id 4 M cD onne ll D ouglas C

orp. v . G re en , 411 U . S. 792 , 802 , 93 S . Ct . 181 7, 36 L . E d. 2d66 8 (1 97 3) fram ewo rkto crea te a tr iabl e is su e. Id . D es pit e Ba ss’ s c ont en tio ns o the rw ise , he doe s no t su bm it dir ec t e vid en ce of ADA d i s cr i m i n at i o n . Th e a l l eg edco m m en t s m ad e b y Pe t erMu tu ku , o n e o f B as s ’s supe rv iso rs , to Ba ss’ s m oth er doe s no t t en d to pr ove dis cr im inatio n w ith out inf er en ce or pr es um pti on. A s e xpl ai ne d by

the dis tr ic t c ourt, Mutuk u w as not the de ci sio nm ak er

in thi s c as e. B as s’ s atte m pts to m ak e Mut

uku out to be the ef fe ct ive de ci sio nm ak er

are ba se d on ly

on s pe cu latio n. See Standa rd v. A .B .E.L . 2 Services, Inc. , 161 F . 3d 1 318, 133 0 ( 11th C ir . 199 8) ( “ [R ] em ar ks b y non de ci sio nm ak er s or

r em ar ks unr el at ed

to the de ci sio nm ak ing pr oc es s it se lf are not direct evidence of discrim ination .” ). Further, Mutuku ’ s alleged com m ents, as re ite rate d by

Ba ss’ s m oth er , are va gue and are not ac le ar ind ic at ionof dis cr im inator

y anim us. 3pe rs on a l bu sin e ss l e ave (B a ss w a s n ot e lig ibl e to t ake any a dd iti on a l F MLA l e ave ). It w a s at th is time that Mutuku alleg edly said to Ba ss’s mother on the phone that “in the past L ockhee d went alongwith [ Ba ss] and his hea lth problems, but the company was not g oing to do that a ny more and [Bass] would be fire d.” (Mr s. Ba ss Decl., R2-68, Ta b A, Subtab 73.) In a subseque nt phone call duringthe same month, B ass’s mother discusse d her son’ s inability to work due to seve re depre ssion, and Mutuku alleg edly said that “he had done a ll that he could do for [Ba ss] and that [Bass] could not be helped a ny more.” Id . L oc kh e e d gra nte d B a ss’ s r e qu e st f

or a tw o- month leave , and B ass re turned on January 17, 2005. Mutuku denied makingthe above comments, but s t at e d th ath e d i d

f i n d B a s s ’ s h i s t o r

y o f un e x c u s e d

t ar d i e s an d

a b s e n c e s , unr e l at e d

t o F M LA leave , “fr ustrating ” bec ause the y

resulted in unfinished pr ojects that nee ded to be r eassigned. (Mutuku Dec l., R2-68, Tab H, ¶ 16.) . Ba ss does not contest that he ha d many unexcused tardies and abse nces unr elated to F MLA abse nces, or that his most recent two-month depa rture w as not FMLA leave . Given that the a lleg ed comments we re ma de on the he el of L ockhee d providing B a s s w i tha

o n e - y e ar l e av e a c c o m o d at i o n , w h i c hw a s f o l l o w e d b y a tw o - m o n thn o n - F M LA leave , the fa ct that B ass had a rec ord of many

unexcused tardies a

nd absenc es, and the fac t that the alleg ed comments a

re va gue and do not point to any particula r disability , we do not believe a rea sonable jury

could consider

Mutuku’s alleg ed comments a s evidenc ing, w ithout inferenc e or presumption, an animus towar ds Ba ss’s disabiliti es. 5 A s f or c ir cum stanti al e vid en ce , e ve n if w e as sum e a pr im a fa ci e ca se , Ba ss fa ils to pr ovi de suf

fi ci en t e vid en ce sho w ing that “ the le git im at e re as ons of fe re d by the defendant . . . we re a pretext for discrim ination .” Tex as Dept. of Comty. A ffa irs v . B urdi ne , 450 U . S. 248 , 253 , 101 S . Ct . 108 9, 109 3, 67 L . E d. 2d 2 07 (1 981) . L oc khe ed

sub m its that B as s w as r el ea se d a s ar es ult of aRI F. ( Re spon se Br ie f, a t 8. ) L oc khe ed

la id o ff e m plo y ee s w iththe low es t “ sta ck r an kin gs” in cert ai n jo b c la ss ifi cat io ns . Id . Em ploy ees in selected j ob classifications were ranke d onthe f

oll ow ing c ri te ri a: ( 1) w he the r the e m plo y ee w as a da

pta ble or m ult idis ci pli ne d; ( 2) the e m

plo y ee ’ s c om

m uni catio ns s kil ls; ( 3) the e m plo y ee ’ s qu al ity of w ork; ( 4) the e m

plo y ee ’ s pr oduc tiv ity ; ( 5) the e m plo y ee ’ s m an ag em en t sk ill s6

an d te ch nic al le ad er shi p; ( 6) the e m plo y ee ’ s te ch nic al kno w le dge ; ( 7) the em ploy ee’ s values and behavio rs, includi ng attendance, a “ can do” attitude, int er pe rs ona l sk ill s, and r es pons ive ne ss; and ( 8) the dif fi cu lty of r ep la ci ng the em pl oyee. Id . B as s w as sc or ed a s apoo r or al c om

m uni cator , w as slo wto co m ple te pr oj ec ts, la ck ed

m an ag em en t sk ill s, w as e as y to re pla ce , and h ad

m any unexcused absen ces unrelated to FML A a bsences. ( Altom are De cl., R2-68, T ab F, ¶ 14.) Ba ss m

ust sho wpr et ex t “ ei the r dir ec tly by pe rs ua din g th e co urt tha t a dis cr im inator

y r ea son m or e lik el y

m oti va te d th e em

plo y er or ind ir ec tly

by showing th at the em

ploy er’ s proffer ed explanation is unworthy of cre dence.” B urdi ne , 450 U . S. a t 25 6, 101 S . Ct . a t 10 95. B as s m ust m ee t the pr of

fe re d r ea son

“ he ad on and r eb ut i t . . . [ he ] c annot suc ce ed by sim ply quarr el ing w iththe wisdom of that rea son.” B rook

s v . Co unt y Co m m ' n of J ef fe rso n C ount y, A la. , 446 F.3 d 1 16 0, 1 16 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Ba ss d oe s no t t ak e iss ue w ithany of the lowsc or es he r ec ei ve d, or that he ha d th e low es t sc or e in h is r es pe ct ive j ob c la ssi fi catio n. I nst ea d, Ba ss r el ie s onthe al le ge d c om

m en ts M utuku m ad e to B as s’ s m oth er , L oc khe ed ’ s de ci sio n to not retain him

for a differe nt pos ition , and that two non -disabled em ploy ees had re ce i v edl ay o ff

n o t i ce s b u twe re u l t i m at el y re h i re db y th e c o m p an y. Mu tu ku ’sBa ss also cites to statements from thre e L ockhee d employ ees, two of which ar e fr om 4 himself and Walter B ell (anothe r employee that was laid off ). Eac h employ ee states that in the past, when L ockhee d laid off e mploy ees be cause of insufficie nt work, the e ng ineer s with the least amount of e x perie nce a nd qualifications were la id off. The se statements a re unc ompelling. Ba ss submit s no evidenc e of this beingthe first time L ockhee d has used stac k ranking s for lay offs, or that the stack ra

nkings w ere without merit. Further , L ockhee d made c lear that the instant RI F wa s not init iated as a conseque nce of

insufficient wor

k. L ockhee d acknow ledg es that there was a n abundanc e of w ork to be done . (Response B rief at 7.) Instead, the RI F wa s imposed by mana g e me nt a s a

re su lt o f b ud g e tary

c on str a int s o n a

pa rt ic ula r p ro je c t. 7 al le ge d c om

m en ts, de sc ri be d inm or e de ta il ab ove , are not ac onvi nc ing ind ic at ion of dis cr im inator

y anim us; suc h e vid en ce , by

it se lf , is anins uf

fi ci en t sh ow ing of pr et ex t at this sta ge . L oc khe ed ’ s de ci sio n to not r eh ir e Ba ss i s no t c om

pe lli ng g i v e nB a s s ’s l o ws t a c kr an k i n g s c o r e s — s c o r e s th a tB a s s d o e s n o tc o n t e s t . F i n a l l y, Ba ss o ff er s in suf fi ci en t c om

parativ e da taw ithr es pe ct to the tw o e m

plo y ee s who we re r etained by

Lockheed. For e xam

ple, Ba ss does no t detail their particular circum stances, their stack ranking scores, or the per centage of em ploy ees that were re ta in edde sp it e h av in g re cei ve d l ay off no ti ces . (Res po ns e Bri ef at6.) On this record, B ass fails to provide su fficient evidence te ndin g to sho w that L oc khe ed ’ s pr of

fe re d r ea son fo r te rm inatio n w as pr et ex tua l. 4

II. ADEA The ADEA pro hi bi ts anem pl oyer fro m

di sc riminat in g o n t he ba si s o f ag e. 29 U . S. C. § 62 3( a) . B as s su bm its that at the r el ev an t t im e he w as 48 y ears old and W alter B ell wa s 55 y ears old. Bass also asserts that he applied for fourteen other8

posit ions in ternally , but w as not hired for any of them . (Reply

Brief at 6-7.) A ga in, e ve n if

w e as sum e a pr im a fa ci e ca se , the c ir cum stanti al e vid en ce is sim ply insufficient to evid ence a discrim inatory anim us or otherwise discredit the RIF im posed byLockheed. T his is especially true given that Bass does no t dispu te that a L oc khe ed

e m plo y ee f if te eny ears old er

than B as s c ont inu es to be e m plo y ed in Bas s’s job cla ss ifi cat io n. (R es po ns e Bri ef at30 .) III. F M LA R etali ati on Ba ss a sse rt s th at

L oc khe ed

r et al iate d a ga ins t hi m

f or e nga gin g inan a ct ivi ty pr ot ect edby the FMLA; i.e., Loc kh eedterm in at edBas s fo r ta ki ng FMLA le av e. T o e sta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of

F ML Ar et al iatio n, Ba ss m ust de m onstrate that: (1 ) he e nga ge d instatut or ily pr ote ct ed

c ondu ct ; ( 2) he suf

fe re d an a dve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on ; an d (3 ) th ere i s a c au sa l co nn ect io n b et ween th e two . Brungart v. B ellsouth Telec omm s., Inc. , 231 F . 3d 7 91, 798 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) . B as s ar gue s th at

the pr oxi m ity

in tim e be tw ee n th e pr ote ct ed c ondu ct and the a dve rs e ac tio n satis fi es the c au sa l c onne ct ion . B as s la st t ook FM L Ale av e in M ay 200 4, ap pr oxi m at el y

e le ve n m onths p ri or

to re ce ivi ng h is l ay

of f not if ic at ion . W e, li ke th e d is tri ctco ur t, h ol d t ha t t hi s i s i ns uf fic ie ntto supp or t t he cau sa l co nn ect io n. Se e W as cu ra v. Cit

y o f S. Mia mi , 257 F . 3d 1 238, 124 8 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) ( hol din g that a “ three and one-half m onth tem poral proxim ity

is insu fficient to cr eate a j ury9

i s s u e o ncau s at i o n .” ). Ba s s al s o ar g u es th atMu tu ku ’s al l eg edco m m en t s t o Ba s s ’s m other establish a causal connection. How ever, given the contentof the alleged com m ents and the contextin which they we re m ade (see supra note 3), and giv en that the re is no e vid en ce li nki ng M utuku t o th e ult im at e de ci sio n to te rm inate B a s s , we mu s th o l dth a tB a s s f a i l s t o e s t ab l i s h ac au s a l c o n n e c t i o n . Ac c o r d i n g l y, w e a f f i rm. AFFIRMED.