Donna Louis v. Nailtiques Cosmetic Corp.

MEMORANDUM

Donna Louis appeals from the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Nailtiques Cosmetic Corporation and Diane Hammond (“Defendants”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). Construing all of the facts in Louis’s favor, we conclude that Louis failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to any of her claims. See Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1998).

With respect to her breach of contract claim, under California law, the presumption is that employment is at-will, Cal. Lab.Code § 2922; Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654 , 254 Cal. Rptr. 211, 223 , 765 P.2d 373 (1988), and the burden is on the employee to prove otherwise. Eisenberg v. Alameda Newspapers, Inc., 74 Cal.App.4th 1359 , 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 802, 824 (1999). Here, there is no evidence that the parties reached an oral or implied agreement to a three-year employment contract allowing termination only “for cause.” In fact, the evidence demonstrates that the parties did not enter into a written contract because they disagreed about…