2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-12-2013

John Mehalis v. Frito Lay Inc

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-3162

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"John Mehalis v. Frito Lay Inc" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 241.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/241
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

_____________

No. 12-3162

_____________

JOHN MEHALIS; CURTIS THIBODEAU,

 Appellants

v.

FRITO-LAY, INC.; TYLER MONTGOMERY 

____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

District Court No. 3-08-cv-01371 and 3-08-cv-01372

District Judge: The Honorable Anne E. Thompson

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

September 9, 2013

Before: SMITH, ALDISERT, and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges

(Filed: September 12, 2013)

_____________________

 OPINION

_____________________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

John Mehalis and Curtis Thibodeau worked full time as mechanics for FritoLay, Inc., at its Franklin Park garage in Somerset, New Jersey. Their supervisor,
2

Tyler Montgomery, terminated their employment on February 7 and 23, 2007, 

respectively. Thereafter, Mehalis and Thibodeau filed suit against Frito-Lay in 

state court, alleging that their discharge violated New Jersey’s Conscientious 

Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:19-1. Frito-Lay removed 

the actions to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, where they were 

consolidated. After discovery concluded, Frito-Lay successfully moved for 

summary judgment. This timely appeal followed.1 We will affirm.

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo. Sarnowski v. Air 

Brooke Limousine, Inc., 510 F.3d 398, 401 (3d Cir. 2007). The District Court 

granted summary judgment on the ground that neither Mehalis nor Thibodeau 

adduced sufficient evidence to support the prima facie element of causation. See 

Massarano v. N.J. Transit, 948 A.2d 653, 662 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2008) 

(reiterating the four elements of a prima facie CEPA claim, including “a causal 

connection . . . between the whistle-blowing activity and the adverse employment 

action” (quoting Dzwoner v. McDevitt, 828 A.2d 893, 900 (N.J. 2003)). In 

addition, the District Court noted that Frito-Lay had proffered a legitimate nonretaliatory reason for discharging Mehalis and Thibodeau, and that the evidence 

failed to establish that this reason for discharge was a pretext. After reviewing the 

record before us, we conclude that the District Court did not err in its analysis. 

 

1

 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441. We 
3

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

 

exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.