Massucco

MEMORANDUM **

Joseph Massucco appeals a grant of summary judgment in favor of his employ *131 er, Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, on his retaliatory termination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), Wash. Rev.Code § 49.60.210(1), and his common law claim for wrongful termination in contravention of public policy. See Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wash.2d 219 , 685 P.2d 1081, 1089 (1984) (en banc). As the parties are familiar with the factual record, we do not recount it here, except as necessary to explain our decision.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Massucco, the nonmovant. Dominguez-Curry v. Nev. Transp. Dep’t, 424 F.3d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir.2005). Summary judgment is appropriate if no genuine issues of material fact remain and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the governing legal principles. Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 159 F.3d 365 , 369 (9th Cir.1998). Even where issues of fact remain, they will only preclude summary judgment if “they are material to the…