Jones

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff James Jones appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”). Because this action is before us on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, we apply state substantive law and federal procedural law. Gasperini v. Center for Humanities Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 427, 116 S.Ct. 2211 , 135 L.Ed.2d 659 (1996).

The history of this action began with complaints made by several female Costco employees against Jones for sexual harassment and misconduct. Upon receiving the complaints, three Costco managers undertook an investigation. They interviewed approximately seventeen employees, including some managers and supervisors. Jones was personally interviewed twice. He prepared two written statements, to which he attached declarations from other employees. After completion of the interviews and upon review of the evidence collected, including statements corroborating many of the complainants’ allegations, *322 Costco concluded that Jones had violated the company’s sexual harassment policy and therefore terminated his employment. Jones subsequently brought this wrongful termination action.

Jones argues first that…

dissenting.

FISHER, Circuit Judge.

I dissent from the majority opinion insofar as it concludes that Jones’ termination was governed by California’s default good cause standard. I believe that Jones has raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the Employment Agreement entitled Jones to greater protections against discharge than those reflected by the good cause standard.

The California Supreme Court has recognized that an express or implied contract may impose additional safeguards exceeding the right not to be terminated for good cause. The good cause standard constitutes a floor, and express terms in an employment agreement may create an implied contract imposing greater restrictions on the employer’s termination rights. See Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall Int'l 17 Cal.4th 93 , 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 900 , 948 P.2d 412 , 414 n. 1 (Ca.1998); id. at 423 (Mosk, J., concurring) (“[Tjhere is nothing ... that precludes an employer and an employee from negotiating or impliedly forming a contract with a ‘good cause’ clause that defines that term more explicitly, in which case the jury’s good cause determination would be shaped by this contractual definition.... A court may also reasonably…