Luis Pascual v. the Boeing Company, 700 F. App'x 646

Plaintiff Luis R. Pascual, proceeding pro se, sued his employer after termination asserting federal and California-law claims including age discrimination, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, failure to prevent discrimination, breach of contract and implied covenant, retaliation under Cal. Lab. Code §1102.5, and a Veterans’ Preference Act claim.
The district court granted summary judgment for the employer on all claims. Pascual appealed; this Court has appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews summary judgment de novo.
The central factual/legal disputes concerned whether Pascual created a triable issue of discriminatory motive (age), whether his employment was at-will, whether he engaged in protected whistleblower activity, and whether the Veterans’ Preference Act applied to his employment.
The district court found no genuine disputes of material fact on each claim and entered summary judgment for the employer.
Pascual also sought remand for additional discovery in his opening brief; the panel denied that request and declined to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Age discrimination	Pascual contends termination was motivated by age	Employer contends no evidence of discriminatory motive	Court: No genuine dispute of discriminatory motive; summary judgment affirmed
Wrongful termination/public policy & failure to prevent discrimination	Pascual says termination violated anti-discrimination public policy and employer failed to prevent discrimination	Employer says underlying discrimination claim fails, so related claims fail	Court: Because age claim fails, these related claims fail; summary judgment affirmed
Breach of contract & implied covenant	Pascual alleges contract or implied covenant breached by termination	Employer asserts Pascual was an at-will employee	Court: Pascual failed to raise dispute about at-will status; summary judgment affirmed
Retaliation (Cal. Lab. Code §1102.5)	Pascual claims he engaged in protected whistleblowing activity	Employer contends he did not engage in protected activity	Court: No triable issue that Pascual engaged in protected activity; summary judgment affirmed
Veterans’ Preference Act claim	Pascual argues veterans’ preference applies to his situation	Employer contends the Act does not apply to private civilian employment	Court: Act inapplicable here; Pascual failed to raise a genuine dispute; summary judgment affirmed

Cotton v. City of Alameda, 812 F.2d 1245 (9th Cir. 1987) (standard of de novo review for summary judgment on appeal)
Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc., 8 P.3d 1089 (Cal. 2000) (elements of age-discrimination claim under California law)
Sanders v. Arneson Prods., Inc., 91 F.3d 1351 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming summary judgment on public-policy claim when discrimination claim fails)
Trujillo v. N. Cty. Transit Dist., 73 Cal. Rptr. 2d 596 (Ct. App. 1998) (no failure-to-prevent claim where no discrimination occurred)
Horn v. Cushman & Wakefield W., Inc., 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 459 (Ct. App. 1999) (at-will employment precludes breach of employment contract or implied covenant claims)
Mokler v. County of Orange, 68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 568 (Ct. App. 2007) (elements for protected activity under §1102.5)
Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330 (1953) (Veterans’ preference not compulsory in private civilian employment)
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (issues not raised in opening brief or raised first on appeal need not be considered)