Carol Milne v. Pierce Brothers

972 F.2d 1341 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Carol MILNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PIERCE BROTHERS, Defendant-Appellee. No. 91-55340. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 6, 1992. * Decided July 17, 1992. Before FARRIS, WIGGINS and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Carol Milne appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of Pierce Brothers (Pierce) on her breach of employment contract claim. We affirm. DISCUSSION 3 The district court's grant of summary judgment was proper on two grounds: (1) Milne's claim is preempted by provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (ERISA); and (2) she was an "at will" employee who could be terminated without cause or notice. We assume that the district court relied on both of these grounds. In any event, our review of the district court's summary judgment is not limited to a consideration of the grounds upon which the district court…