Virtusio v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

1. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) did not breach any implied-in-fact contract that existed between it and Nelia Virtusio because a reasonable person would understand FINRA promised to pay only worker’s- compensation benefits — not additional short-term disability benefits — for work-related injuries. Cf. Guz v. Bechtel Nat'l, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317, 336-37, 344 , 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352 , 8 P.3d 1089 (2000). FINRA’s employee handbook indicated outside guidelines would determine an employee’s eligibility for short-term disability benefits and that worker’s compensation benefits covered work-related injuries. The handbook also directed employees to the human resources department, which told Virtusio that short-term disability benefits were not available for her work-related injuries. No FINRA employee made a contrary representation, and no document said she could have both. A reasonable person would understand that the benefits are mutually exclusive. Because the remainder of Vir-tusio’s claims depend on FINRA’s alleged obligation to pay her short-term disability benefits, they also fail as a matter of law, and the district court properly granted summary…