Paolini

facts remain as to whether certain events which occurred in 2001 accelerated the vesting of certain stock options he pos- sessed. Second, Paolini contends that the district court erred when it determined that, as a matter of law, he had not been wrongfully discharged. Paolini maintains that he was wrong- fully terminated in violation of Idaho’s wage laws, public pol- icy, and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Finally, Paolini argues that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment to Albertson’s on its counterclaim, hold- ing that he owed Albertson’s the principal and interest due on a promissory note that had been extended to him. Because we find that none of these arguments has merit, we affirm the dis- trict court’s ruling.

II.

In granting Albertson’s motion for summary judgment, the district court agreed with the Plan Administrator’s determina- tion that Paolini’s stock options did not vest in 2001,1 as do we. 1 Paolini contests the deferential standard applied by the district court in its review of the Plan Administrator’s decision. We need not determine 3950 PAOLINI v. ALBERTSON’S INC. [1] The relevant contractual clause—Section…