[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JAN 21, 2009
No. 08-11209 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-20416-CV-JAL
LOUIS PERRERO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SPECTACOR MANAGEMENT GROUP,
a foreign corporation a.k.a. SMG, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(January 21, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case was brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623(a). In his third amended four-count complaint
(“complaint”), Louis Perrero, alleged in Count I that his employer, Spectacor
Management Group (“SMG”) discriminated against him in the work place on
account of his age1 ; in Count II that such discrimination was willful; and in Count
III that SMG retaliated against him for having complained to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) about the discrimination
described in Counts I and II, and terminated his employment on account of his
age.2 Count IV alleged that SMG breached the contract of employment.
After the parties joined issue and engaged in discovery, SMG moved the
district court for summary judgment.3 In a comprehensive order entered on
February 20, 2008, the district court painstakingly reviewed the evidence relating
to Perrero’s employment history with SMB and granted SMG summary judgment.
Perrero now appeals.
1
He was 62 years of age at the time he brought this lawsuit.
2
The allegations of Counts I through III were, collectively, that SMG (1) failed to give
him appropriate job training; (2) denied him overtime work; (3) failed to supply him with the
tools necessary to do his work; (4) failed to remedy his complaints of verbal and physical
harassment by co-employees; (5) disciplined him; (6) made age-based comments pressuring him
to retire and because he had complained to the EEOC; and (7) fired him on August 3, 2005.
Perrero’s complaint was limited by the scope of his complaint to the EEOC in 2005,
which only alleged discrimination based on SMG’s termination of his employment. See Mulhall
v. Advance Security, Inc., 19 F.3d 586, 589 n. 8 (11th Cir. 1994).
3
SMG also moved the court to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
The court denied the motion. The ruling is not before us in this appeal.
2
Here, on appeal, Perrero first argues that ageist comments made by SMG’s
human resources manager, Ricardo Artalejo, constituted direct evidence of
discrimination. He argues alternatively that the extensive circumstantial evidence
before the district court was sufficient to demonstrate that SMG’s proffered
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating him was pretextual.4
The ADEA makes it unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to
discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with
respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because
of such individual’s age. . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). To succeed on claims of
discrimination under the ADEA, the plaintiff must make out a prima facie case of
discrimination. Chapman, 229 F.3d 1012, 1024 (11th Cir. 2000). If the plaintiff
establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the defendant employer must
articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged employment
action. Id. If the employer meets this burden of production, the plaintiff must
come forward with evidence “sufficient to permit a reasonable factfinder to
conclude that the reasons given by the employer were not the real reasons” for the
4
Perrero raises no challenge on appeal to the district court’s grant of summary judgment
on his retaliation and breach of contract claims, Counts III and IV. He has therefore abandoned
those claims. See Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir.
2004) (explaining that, “a legal claim or argument that has not been briefed before the court is
deemed abandoned”).
3
employment action. Id. In other words, “[i]f the plaintiff does not proffer
sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether
each of the defendant employer’s articulated reasons is pretextual, the employer is
entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim.” Id. at 1024-25.
“[C]onclusory allegations of discrimination, without more, are not sufficient to
raise an inference of pretext or intentional discrimination where [an employer] has
offered . . . extensive evidence of legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its
actions.” Young v. General Foods Corp., 840 F.2d 825, 830 (11th Cir. 1988)
(quotations omitted) (modifications in original ).
As the district court correctly pointed out in its February 20 order granting
SMG summary judgment, the evidence considered in the light most favorable to
Perrero failed to demonstrate that SMG’s proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for his termination were a pretext for age discrimination. Since the
evidence was insufficient to support the termination claim, it also failed to
demonstrate a case of willful violation of the ADEA.
AFFIRMED.
4