Wood

MEMORANDUM *

John H. Wood (‘Wood”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of his former employer, Dollar Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. (“Dollar”), in his action alleging (1) age discrimination in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (3) interference with his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”), (4) breach of an implied-in-fact employment contract, (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and (6) violation of the California Unfair Practices Act (“CUPA”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Reviewing the grant of summary judgment de novo, see Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir.2003), we affirm the district court’s ruling on Wood’s claim that Dollar breached an implied-in-fact employment agreement, and we reverse the district court’s rulings on all of Wood’s remaining claims.

I.

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Dollar on Wood’s breach of implied-in-fact contract claim because Wood signed an express agreement acknowledging that he was…

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from parts II, III, IV and V of the majority disposition. In my opinion, the district court correctly granted summary judgment for Dollar on Wood’s claims alleging: (1) age discrimination; (2) unlawful retaliation under FEHA; (3) interference with FMLA & CFRA rights; and (4) wrongful termination in violation of public policy and violation of the CUPA.

I. FEHA Age Discrimination Claim

The majority concludes that Wood presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine factual dispute as to whether Dollar’s *624 asserted reason is pretextual. I disagree. FEHA makes it unlawful to discharge or discriminate against a person over the age of 40 in compensation or in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of age. Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a). To prove a prima facie case of age discrimination, a plaintiff must show that (1) he is over the age of 40, (2) he was performing competently in the position he held, (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, such as termination or demotion, and (4) some other circumstance suggests discriminatory motive. See McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp., 360 F.3d 1103, 1122 (9th Cir.2004).

Once…