Byrnes
Byrnes v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
1. In this diversity action, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Although Byrnes arguably establishes a prima facie case of disability discrimination *36 under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940 et seq., he cites no admissible evidence that Lockheed’s proffered reasons for his termination, including sexual harassment of a co-worker, disregarding supervisors’ directives, showing hostility toward a department head, and suggesting by veiled threat he might “go postal,” were a pretext for illegal discrimination. See Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317, 355-56 , 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352 , 8 P.3d 1089 (2000).
2. Byrnes’ cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy likewise is amenable to summary judgment. The only public policy inferentially alleged to have been violated was FEHA, and since that claim presented no genuine issue of material fact, the district court’s dismissal of Byrnes’ public policy claim was appropriate. See Sequoia Ins. Co. v. Superior Ct., 13 Cal.App.4th 1472, 1480 , 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 888 (1993).
3. The district court did not err in…