Samuel A. Brinkley v. Honeywell, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

35 F.3d 570 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Samuel A. BRINKLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HONEYWELL, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 93-35402. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Aug. 4, 1994. Decided Aug. 30, 1994. Before: ALARCON, BEEZER and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Samuel Brinkley ("Brinkley") appeals from the order granting summary judgment in favor of Honeywell, Inc. ("Honeywell"). Brinkley contends that the employee handbook issued by Honeywell in 1980 ("1980 Handbook") modified his at-will employment status, and that Honeywell failed to follow the procedural safeguards contained in the 1980 Handbook when he was terminated. Brinkley also contends that he was terminated on the basis of his sex. We affirm the order granting summary judgment. We conclude that Brinkley failed to demonstrate that the 1980 Handbook provided him with legally enforceable rights regarding termination of his…