Charles A. Forjone v. S.E. Rykoff & Company

17 F.3d 394 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Charles A. FORJONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S.E. RYKOFF & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. No. 92-16562. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Jan. 14, 1994. Decided Feb. 4, 1994. 1 Before: SCHROEDER and NOONAN, Circuit Judges, and JONES, * District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 Charles A. Forjone appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of his former employer, S.E. Rykoff & Company (Rykoff). We affirm. 4 After being terminated from his position as maintenance supervisor, Forjone filed suit alleging that Rykoff violated Sec. 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and Sec. 12940 of the California Government Code by terminating his employment due to "his back condition, a physical handicap" in order to save the expense of ERISA benefits. The district court held that Forjone failed to produce evidence establishing an issue of material fact for…