May

May v. Honeywell International, Inc.

Good Law
331 F. App'x 526
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 17, 2009No. 07-35480California1,680 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

AMENDED MEMORANDUM **

Barbara May (“May”) appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees Honeywell International, Inc. (“Honeywell”) and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) on claims for breach of contract and violations of the Washington Wage Act, Washington Consumer Protection Act, Washington discrimination law and ERISA.

1. Breach of Contract

May argues that Honeywell breached its contractual obligation to pay her short-term disability (“STD”) benefits in accordance with the company’s STD benefits program. Under Washington law, a contract is formed where there is an objective manifestation of mutual assent to the contract. See Keystone Land & Dev. v. Xerox Corp., 152 Wash.2d 171 , 94 P.3d 945 , 949 (2004). Honeywell expressed such an assent in its clear statements describing the disability program’s benefits and procedures in the STD benefit plan. See Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wash.2d 219 , 685 P.2d 1081, 1087 (1984).

Washington courts have also held that an employer who “creates an atmosphere of ...' fair treatment with promises of specific treatment in specific situations and an employee is induced thereby to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.