FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L16, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT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- 13 72 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 9- cv -0 07 47 -CEH-SP C

MANUEL HERNAND EZ, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
vers us W ILSONART INTERNATIONAL, INC., a fo rei gn co rp or at io n, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 16 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Man ue l Herna nd ez ap pe al s the su m m ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t h is co m pl ai ntth athe was d en ie d e m pl oym en t atW il so nart I nt ern at io na l, In c., be cau se of di sc riminat io n b as edonna ti on al ori gi n i n v io la ti on of Ti tl e VII o f th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 , 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -2 , andth e Fl or id a Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 92 , Fla
. St at . § 7 60 .10 . The d is tri ctco urt ru le d tha t Herna nd ez fa il edto pro ve th atth e le gi ti m at e n on -d is cri min at ory reas on s Wils on artga ve forde cl in in g t o h ire Hern an de z were p ret ex tu al . W e aff irm. Hern an de z arg ue s tha t Wils on artreject edhi s ap pl ic at io n fo r a p os it io n a s a de li ve ry dri ve r be cau se he is His pa ni c. Und er Tit le VII an d the Flo rid a Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act, i t i s u nl awfu l fo r anem pl oyer “ to fai l o r refu se to hi re . . . any in di vi du al
. . . be cau se of s uc h i nd iv idua l’s . . . nat io na l o rig in .” 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -2 (a)( 1) ; Fl a. St at . § 7 60 .10 (1 )(a) . The Fl or id a Actwas m od el edaft er an d
em pl oys th e sa m e an al yti cal fram ewo rkas Ti tl e VII. Harp er v . Blo ckbu st er Ent m ’t Cor

p., 1 39 F.3d13 85 , 13 87 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ); J os hu a v . Cit y of Ga in es vi ll e, 76 8 S o. 2 d 4 32 , 43 5 (F la . 20 00 ). Becaus e th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d tha t Hern an de z es tabl is he d apri m a fac ie cas e o f di sc riminat io n, we re vi ew de no vo whe th er the reas on s p ro ffer edforhi s t erm in at io n wer e m erel y pre te xt s fo r di sc riminat io n. Se e Ro well v. Be ll So ut h C or p., 4 33 F.3d79 4, 7 98 (11 thCir
. 20 05 ). W il so na rt p res en te d e vi de nc e th atitreject edHern an de z’s ap pl ic at io n fo r 2two leg it im at e, no n- di sc riminat ory reas on s. Fi rs t, Hern an de z fai le d t o s ub mita
ve rif iabl e work h is to ry . W il so na rt r eque st edth atap pl ic an ts subm ita ge ne ral ap pl ic at io n fo rm

an d adri ve r’s ap pl ic at io n fo rm li st in g the na m es an d t el ep ho ne
nu m be rs of t he ir e m

pl oyers fo r th e p rece di ng th ree years. With inth e sa m e ti m e fram e th atth e in di vi du al s Wils on arthi red , Antho ny Palm er an d C arl Ren ni ng er, ha d s ub m it te d the ir f

orm s an d s up pl em en tary

do cu m en ts requi redto co m pl et e th e ap pl ic at io n p ro ces s, Hern an de z h adsubm it te d o nl y in co m pl et e ap pl ic at io n fo rm s. Seco nd , Hern an de z h adth e le as t wo rkex pe rie nc e. Hern an de z h adfou r y ears of dr iv in g e xp eri en ce, b utbo th Pal m er an d R en ni ng er h adm or e y ears of driv in g
ex pe rie nc e. Hern an de z fai le d t o c reat e a g enui ne factua l d is pu te ab ou t the leg it im acy of th os e rea so ns . To pr ov e p ret ex t, Hern an de z h adto est ab li sh th ere wer e “ ‘suc h 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 c on tra di ct io ns in th e . . . pro ffer edleg it im at e rea so ns . . . th ata reas on ab le fact fin de r co ul d fi nd th em un worth y

of c red en ce.’” Alv arez v. Ro y al Atl . Deve lo pe rs , Inc ., 61 0 F .3d 12 53 , 12 65 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (quo ti ng Co m bs v. Pl an ta ti on Pat te rn s, 1 06 F.3d 15 19 , 15 38 (11 th Cir . 19 97 )). Hern an de z arg ue s tha t the de ci si on m ak er at W il so na rt, Th om as Grear, t es ti fie d i nc on si st en tl y ab ou t b as in g h is de ci si on on
cu st om er co m

pl ai nt s ab ou t Herna nd ez’s wo rkfora pr ev io us em pl oyer, bu t ev enif
3th atpro ffer edreas on is fal se , Hern an de z is no t “ en ti tl e[d ] . . . to g etpa stsu m m ary jud gm en t” gi ve n the othe r le gi ti m at e, no n- di sc riminat ory reas on s t o re

ject h is ap pl ic at io n. Id . at 1 26 4. Hern an de z al so arg ue s tha t h e was equa ll y qu al ifi edfor th e driv er p os it io n andeli m in at edfro m th e in te rv ie w pro ces s u nf ai rly, but W il so na rt wa s en ti tl edto co nc lu de th atHern an de z was no t as qu al ifi edas e ithe r Pal m er o r Ren ni ng er. See id . at 1 26 6. Hern an de z fai le d t o p res en t ev id en ce tha t the reas on s p ro ffer edby W il so na rt we re p ret ex tu al . “ W e are no t i n the bu si ne ss of a dju dg in g wh ethe r
em pl oym en t d eci si on s ar e p ru de ntor f ai r. Ins te ad , ou r so le co nc ernis whet he r
un lawfu l d is cri m in at ory

an im us m ot iv at es a ch al le ng edem pl oym en t d eci si on .” Dam on v. Fl em in g S up erm ark et s o f Fl a., In c., 19 6 F .3d13 54 , 13 61 (11 th Cir
. 19 99 ). Viewi ng all th e ev id en ce i n the li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Hern an de z, he fai le d t o c reat e a g enui ne di sp ut e th atth e rea so ns th atW il so na rt p ro ffer edfor reject in g h is ap pl ic at io n wer e d is cri m in at ory or u nwo rth y

of c red en ce. Alv arez , 61 0 F .3dat 1 26 5. The su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of W il so na rt i s AFFIRMED
.

4