William D. Gard v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company

76 F.3d 386 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. William D. GARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-55582. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 16, 1995. Decided Jan. 23, 1996. Before: FLETCHER, CANBY and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 William Gard appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of his former employer AT & T on his claims for breach of an implied-in-fact contract to discharge only for good cause and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under California law. Jurisdiction in the district court was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. BACKGROUND 3 Gard was hired as a supply man by Pacific Telephone, AT & T's predecessor, on October 10, 1966. He was elevated to a management post in 1978. While at AT & T, Gard received regular…