2013 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

9-12-2013 

# J ohn M eh ali s v

. F r it o L a y I nc
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 12-3162

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2013 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" J o hn M e h al i s v

. F r it o L a y I nc " (2013). 2013 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 241. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_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### NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 a nd Curtis Thibodeau worked full time as mechanics for Frito

Lay, Inc., at its Franklin Park garage in Somerset, New Jersey. Their supervisor ,2



### Tyler Montgomery , terminated their employment on February 7 and 23, 2007 , respective ly. Thereafter, Mehalis and Th ibodeau filed suit against Frito

- Lay in state court, alleging that the ir discharge violat ed New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”) , N.J. S tat. A nn . § 34:19

- 1. Frito

- Lay removed the actions to federal court based on diversity jurisdic t ion , where the y 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 gr anted 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, 66 2 (N.J. Super. Ct. A pp . D iv . 2008) (reiterating the four elements of a prima facie CEPA claim, including “a causal connection . . . between the whistle

- blo w ing activity and the adverse employment acti on ” (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 non

retaliatory reason for discharging Mehalis and Thibodeau, and that the evidence failed to establish that th is reason for discharge was a pretext. After reviewin g the record before us, we conclude that the District Court did not err i n its analysis.

1 

### The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § § 1332 and 1441. We3



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

.

exercise jurisdiction un der 28 U.S.C. § 1291.