Case Name: Jose BEDOYA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HILTI, INC., an Oklahoma corporation, qualified to do business in the State of Florida, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-13
Citations: 159 F. App'x 91
Docket Number: No. 04-16730; D.C. Docket No. 03-60327-CV-MGC
Parties: Jose BEDOYA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HILTI, INC., an Oklahoma corporation, qualified to do business in the State of Florida, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before DUBINA and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges and STROM, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 159
Pages: 91–92

Head Matter:
Jose BEDOYA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HILTI, INC., an Oklahoma corporation, qualified to do business in the State of Florida, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 04-16730.
D.C. Docket No. 03-60327-CV-MGC.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Dec. 13, 2005.
Chris Kleppin, Glasser, Boreth, Ceasar & Kleppin, Plantation, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Michael W. Casey, III, Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., Miami, FL, for DefendantAppellee.
Before DUBINA and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges and STROM, District Judge.
Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Jose Bedoya filed a complaint in federal district court alleging employment discrimination, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. In his complaint, Bedoya included claims for failure to promote, discriminatory discharge and retaliation. Hilti, Inc., moved for summary judgment contending that Bedoya's claims arose from discrimination based on national origin, not ethnicity, and as such were not actionable under section 1981. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment to Hilti on that basis. The court also denied Bedoya's Motion for Reconsideration.
After reviewing the record, reading the parties' briefs and having the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district court correctly found that Bedoya's evidence of discrimination was based on national origin. Moreover, we conclude that the district court correctly denied relief on Bedoya's retaliation claim.
We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bedoya's Motion for Reconsideration.
AFFIRMED.
. Alternatively, we could affirm the judgment in this case on the basis that Hilti's proffered reasons for the employment decisions were not pretexual.