FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T FEB 9, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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- 11 49 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 1 :1 0- cv -2 09 58 -UU

ERICO LOPEZ,
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,

ve rs us AT&T, CORP., a fo rei gn li m it ed pa rtn ers hi p,
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 ur t for th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 9, 2 01 2)
Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d M ARCUS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es
. PER CURI AM:Eric o Lop ez ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of
th e de fen d a nt AT&T Co rp
. (“ AT&T”) as to hi s Am eri can s wit h Dis ab il it ie s Act (“ ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12 11 2( a), di sa bi li ty di sc riminat io n la wsu it

. On ap pe al , Lop ez
arg ue s th at : (1 ) he m ad e ou t a pr im a faci e cas e of in te nt io na l di sc riminat io n, AT&T’ s
pr of fere d reas on fo r te rm in at in g hi m -- th reat en in g c o mm e n t s by Lop ez to hi s

su pe rv is or s, in v i o l a t io n of co m pa ny ru le s -- was a pr et ex t fo r di sa bi li ty
di s c r im in at io n, an d th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y weig he d th e ev id en ce in gr an ti ng

su m m ary jud gm en t; an d (2 ) th e di st ri c t c o u rt erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r

reco ns id erat io n. After

care fu l re vi ew, we affi rm
. 1

W e rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t, vi ewin g th e

ev id en ce an d al l fact ua l in fere nc es in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no n- m ov in g
pa rty. Green be rg v. Bel lS ou th Tele co m m s., In c., 49 8 F.3 d 1 2 5 8 , 12 63 (1 1t h Ci r.
20 07 ). W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n fo r ab us e
of di sc ret io n. Lam

be rt v. Fu lt on Co un ty, Ga., 25 3 F .3d 58 8, 5 98 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 01 ).
Fi rs t, we reject Lop ez’s cl ai m th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t to AT&T. Su m m a r y ju dg m en t is ap pr op ria te “ if th e m ov an t sh ows th at

L opez also arg

ues, for the first time on appe al, that AT& T violated his rig hts under the 1 Family Medica l L eave Act (“ FML A”) , 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., beca use they also terminated him because he took FML A leave . Since L opez did not present these issues be fore the district court, we decline to a ddress them on a ppeal. See Acc ess Now, I nc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 ( 11th Cir. 2004) (noting tha t, in ge nera l, we will not addre ss issues raised for the f irst time on appeal)

. 2th ere is no ge n ui ne di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al fact an d th e m ov an t is en ti tl ed to

jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law.” Fe d.R .Civ .P. 56 (a). A ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact
is sh own whe n th e no nm ov in g pa rty pr od uc es ev id en ce so th at a reas on ab le fact fin de r

co ul d r e t ur n a ve rd ic t in it s fav or
. Green be rg , 49 8 F.3 d at 12 63

. Howev er,
sp ecu la ti on or co njec tu re can no t crea te a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact

. Co rd ob a v.
Dil la rd ’s, In c., 41 9 F.3 d 11 69 , 11 81 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). A “ m ere sc in ti ll a of ev id en ce”
in su pp or t of th e no nm ov in g p a r t y al so can no t ov erco m e a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. You ng v. Ci ty o f Pal m Bay, 35 8 F.3 d 85 9, 86 0 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 0 4 )

. I n t he

su m m ary jud gm en t co nt ex t, th e co ur t m us t av oi d weig hi ng co nf

li ct in g ev id en ce or

m ak in g cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns
. Dam on v. Fl em in g Su pe rm ark et s of Fl a., In c., 196
F.3 d 1 35 4, 1 36 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9)

. The ADA ho ld s th at “ [n ]o co ve red en ti ty sh al l di sc riminat e ag ai ns t a qu al ifi ed
in di vi du al on th e ba si s of di sa bi li ty in reg ard to

. . . th e h iri ng , ad va nc em en t, or
di sc ha rg e of em

pl oyee s , em

pl oyee co m

pe ns at io n, job tra in in g, an d ot he r te rm s,

co nd it io ns , an d pr iv il eg es of em pl oym en t.” 42 U.S.C. § 12 11 2( a). W e an al y ze ADA
di sc riminat io n cl ai m s un de r th e bu rd en -s hi fti ng an al y si s ap pl ie d to Tit le VII cl ai m s
i n M c Don ne ll Dou gl as Co rp
. v. Green , 41 1 U.S. 79 2 (1 97 3)

. Hol ly v. Cl a i r s o n
In du s., L.L.C., 49 2 F.3 d 12 47 , 12 55 (1 1 t h C i r
. 2 00 7) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. To

su cces sf ul ly st at e a cl ai m un de r th is f r a m ewo rk , th e pl ai nt iff m us t fir st es ta bl is h a

3pr im a faci e di sc riminat io n cas e, m ean in g he m ay sh ow: (1 ) he is d is ab le d, (2 ) he is

a qu al ifi ed in di vi du al , and (3) he was s ub jecte d t o u nl awfu l d is cri m in at io n bec au se
of hi s di sa bi li ty. See id

. at 12 55 -5 6. Und er McDo nn el l Dou gl as , if th e pl ai nt iff ha s

es ta bl is he d a pr im a faci e cas e of di sc riminat io n, an d t h e e mp lo y er ha s of fere d a
le gi ti m at e, no nd is cri m in at or y reas on fo r th e ch al le ng ed em pl oym en t act io n, th e pl ai nt iff m

us t sh ow th at th e as se rte d no nd is cri m in at or y reas on is pr et ex tu al

. W il so n
v. B/ E Aeros pa ce, In c., 37 6 F .3d 10 79 , 10 87 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ).
A pr of fere d le gi ti m at e, no nd is cri m in at or y reas on is no t pr et ex t fo r
d i s c r i mina ti on un le ss it is sh own bo th th at th e reas on was fal se an d th a t
di sc riminat io n was th e real reas on
. St

. Mar y ’s Hon or Ct r. v. Hick s, 50 9 U.S. 50 2, 51 5 (1 99 3)

. The in qu iry in to whe th er an em pl oyer’s p r of

fere d reas on s were m erel y
pr et ex tu al cen te rs on th e em pl oyer’s be li efs , no t th e be li efs of th e em pl oyee or ev en
ob jecti ve real it y
. Alv arez v. Ro yal Atl an ti c Dev el op ers , I nc ., 6 10 F.3 d 12 53 , 1 26 6 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ). If th e pr of fere d r e a s o n i s on e th at wou ld m ot iv at e a reas on ab le

em pl oyer, th e pl ai nt iff “ m

us t m eet th at reas on he ad on an d re b u t i t , ” r a th er th an

“ si m pl y qu arre li ng wit h th e wis do m of [th e em pl o ye r ’s ] r e as on .” Id

. at 12 65 -6 6 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. The pl ai nt iff m ay es ta bl is h pr et ex t by id en ti fy in g “ su ch
weak ne ss es , im

pl au si bi li ti es , in co ns is te nc ie s, in co he ren ci es , or co nt rad ic ti on s in th e

em pl oyer’s pr of

fe red le gi ti m at e reas on s fo r it s act io n th at a reas on ab le fact fin de r

4co ul d fin d th em un wor th y of cred en ce.” Co m bs v. Pl an ta ti on Pat te rn s, Mea do wcraf t,
In c., 10 6 F.3 d 15 19 , 15 38 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 97 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. W he n th e pr of fere d
le gi ti m at e, no nd is cri m in at or y reas on is pl ai nt iff ’s vi ol at io n of a wo rk rul e, we ha ve
he ld th at th e “ wor k ru le ” de fen se m ay be pr et ex tu al whe n a pl ai nt iff su bm it s ev id en ce (1 ) th at he di d no t vi ol at e th e c i t e d wor k ru le , or (2 ) th at if he di d vi ol at e th e ru le ,
ot he r em pl oyees ou ts id e th e pr ot ect ed cl as s, who en ga ge d in si m il ar act s, were tre at ed
di ffer en tl y . Dam on , 19 6 F .3d at 1 36 3. Lop ez ha s no t de m on st rat ed th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by g r a n t i n g th e
de fen da nt su m

m ary jud gm en t as to hi s di sa bi li ty di sc riminat io n cl ai m u n d e r t he
ADA. Lop ez fai le d to es ta bl is h t h a t A T& T t erm in at ed hi s em pl oym en t be cau se of
hi s po st -tr au m at ic de pr es si on an d pa ni c at ta ck s. In fact , th e op po si te ap pe ared to be

tru e. Fo r e x a mp l e , Lop ez te st ifi ed th at whe n he to ld hi s su pe rv is or ov er th e ph on e
th at t h e s u pe rv is or was th e so ur ce of Lop ez’s pa ni c at ta ck s, th e su pe rv is or be cam e
sym pa th et ic an d al so ex pr es se d an ot he r su pe rv is or ’s c o nc ern fo r Lop ez’s he al th

. Lop ez al so te st ifi ed th at whe n hi s su pe rv is or wit ne ss ed hi m ha vi ng a pa ni c at ta ck at

w o r k , th e su pe rv is or to ld hi m to ta ke a br eak

. In ad di ti on , ba se d on Lop e z ’s a n d

an ot he r em

pl oyee’s te st im on y , th ere was no in di cat io n th at th e ha ras si ng or be li tt li ng

co m m en ts th e su pe rv is or m ad e to Lop ez were rel at e d t o hi s di sa bi li ty. W hi le th e

ot he r em pl oyee m en ti on ed th at de ro ga t o r y co m m en ts were m ad e ab ou t Lop ez’s

5di sa bi li ty, th os e co m m en ts were no t m ad e by Lop ez’s di rect su pe rv is or s. And to th e

ex te nt th os e co m

m en ts co ul d no t su pp or t a fin di ng in Lop ez’s fav or as to cau sa ti on , th ey co ns ti tu te d at m os t a m ere sc in ti ll a, whi ch is no t en ou gh t o o v e r c o me th e

su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n. Yo un g, 3 58 F.3d at 8 60

. 2

W e are a l s o u n pe rs ua de d by Lop ez’s cl ai m th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s
di sc ret io n i n d en y in g h is m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n. A pa rty m ay fil e a Ru le 59 (e)

m o t i o n t o a l t e r or am en d a jud gm en t no la te r th an 28 da y s aft er en try of jud gm en t.
Fed .R.Ci v.P

. 59 (e). The on ly g r o u nd s fo r gr an ti ng a Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n are th e

su bm is si on of ne wly-dis co ve red ev id en ce or th e de m on st rat io n of m an ife st erro rs of
la w or fact

. Arth ur v. Kin g, 50 0 F.3 d 13 35 , 13 43 ( 1 1 t h C i r
. 20 07 ). A m ot io n fo r

reco ns id erat io n ca n n o t be us ed “ to rel it ig at e ol d m at te rs , rai se arg um en t or pr es en t

ev id en ce th at co ul d ha ve be en rai se d pr io r to th e en try of jud gm en t.” Id

. (q uo ta ti on

om it te d)

. The co ur t sh ou ld no t gr an t a mo t i o n fo r reco ns id erat io n whe re a pa rty

at te m pt s to in tro du ce pr ev io us ly un su bm it te d ev id en ce un le ss th at ev id en ce was no t

I n any event, L opez also failed to mee t his burden of showing that AT& T’s prof fer ed 2
rea son for ter

minating his employ

ment -- thre atening comments to his supervisors in violation of a compa ny rule -- was pre text ual. I ndeed, L opez conce des that he sa id to his supervisors, “I know wher e y ou live” and “ it is l ike being at war and killing pe ople.” Nor , moreove r, base d on
our re view of the rec ord, did the district court we igh the party ’s evidenc e, dra w improper infere nces f

rom the fa cts, or make cre dibilit y deter minations in gra

nting summary

judgme nt to AT& T.
6av ai la bl e du rin g th e pe nd en cy of th e su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n. Mays v. U.S. Po st al
Serv ., 12 2 F .3d 43 , 46 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ).

In Lop ez’s m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n, he in tro du ced pr ev io us ly un su bm it te d

ev id en ce wit ho ut sh owi ng th at th is ev id en ce was no t avai la bl e du rin g th e pe nd en cy
of th e su m

m ary jud gm en t m ot io n. Mo reo ve r, as di sc us se d ab ov e, Lop e z f a i l e d to
sh ow th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d a m an ife st erro r in gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t

to AT&T. Accord in gl y , we affi rm
. AFFIRMED.

7