Andras Maholanyi v. Safetouch of Tampa, Inc.

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Andras Maholanyi. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-15260

Date Filed: 04/26/2017

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-15260
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:14-cv-01161-TJC-JRK

ANDRAS MAHOLANYI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SAFETOUCH OF TAMPA, INC.,
d.b.a. Safe Touch Security Systems,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 26, 2017)
Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-15260

Date Filed: 04/26/2017

Page: 2 of 4

Andras Maholanyi appeals the summary judgment against his complaint of
wrongful termination by SafeTouch of Tampa, Inc., in violation of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621–34, and the Florida Civil
Rights Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 760.01–.11. The district court ruled that there were no
genuine issues of material fact about whether Maholanyi’s termination was
nondiscriminatory. We affirm.
The Age Discrimination Act and the Florida Civil Rights Act prohibit an
employer from discharging an individual because of his age. See 29 U.S.C.
§ 623(a)(1); Fla. Stat. § 760.10(1)(a); see also 29 U.S.C. § 631(a) (stating that the
ADEA protects individuals who are at least 40 years of age). We evaluate actions
under the federal and state antidiscrimination statutes using the same framework.
Mazzeo v. Color Resolutions Int’l, LLC, 746 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir. 2014).
Because the district court concluded that Maholanyi established a prima facie case
of discrimination, we review de novo whether the reasons proffered for his
termination were merely pretexts for discrimination. See Furcron v. Mail Ctrs.
Plus, LLC, 843 F.3d 1295, 1313 (11th Cir. 2016).
SafeTouch presented evidence that it had legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for firing Maholanyi. The owner, management, and employees of
SafeTouch testified that sales of its security systems declined after Maholanyi
became the manager of its Tampa branch office. Maholanyi’s supervisors and
2

Case: 16-15260

Date Filed: 04/26/2017

Page: 3 of 4

salesmen also testified that they were unable to contact him by telephone, he was
unprepared and often late for work, and he failed to conduct sales meetings.
Maholanyi failed to create a genuine factual dispute about the legitimacy of
those reasons. To prove pretext, Maholanyi had to prove there were “such
weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies or contradictions in
[his] employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for its actions that a reasonable
factfinder could find them unworthy of credence.” Furcron, 843 F.3d at 1313
(quoting Vessels v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 408 F.3d 763, 771 (11th Cir. 2005)).
Maholanyi argues that he was not disciplined and he received bonuses and a raise,
but undisputed evidence established that the marketing manager had to assist
Maholanyi on several occasions; that SafeTouch did not “writ[e] up branch
managers”; and that remuneration was based on branch revenues instead of sales.
See id. at 1313–14; Wascura v. City of S. Miami, 257 F.3d 1238, 1245 (11th Cir.
2001) (rejecting an employee’s argument that “the lack of documentary evidence
of any complaints concerning her performance” proved pretext because “it [was]
undisputed that there was no formal review process” for the job position).
Maholanyi also argues that the general manager fired him before receiving sales
figures, but the manager testified that he used computer software to calculate sales
figures “well in advance,” which revealed that Maholanyi’s branch was “going to
be exceptionally low.” Maholanyi recounts age-related remarks made by one
3

Case: 16-15260

Date Filed: 04/26/2017

Page: 4 of 4

supervisor, but Maholanyi testified that the supervisor made “snide” or “vulgar”
remarks to everyone during meetings and “it was [his] turn” when the remarks
were directed at him. See Steger v. Gen. Elec. Co., 318 F.3d 1066, 1079 (11th Cir.
2003) (“[S]tatements by nondecisionmakers, or statements by decisionmakers
unrelated to the decisional process at issue will not satisfy the employee’s burden”
of proving pretext.). “Conclusory allegations of discrimination, without more, are
not sufficient to raise an inference of pretext,” Furcron, 843 F.3d at 1313, and
Maholanyi admitted that his age was “the best [reason he] could come up with” to
explain his termination.
The district court did not err by granting summary judgment against
Maholanyi’s complaint of discrimination based on his age. Maholanyi failed to
present evidence that the reasons proffered by SafeTouch were pretextual. The
evidence did not establish a genuine factual dispute about whether the reasons for
Maholanyi’s termination were nondiscriminatory or legitimate.
We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of SafeTouch.

4