Case ID: f-appx_554/html/0559-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Greg HATTO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOME DEPOT USA, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-55302.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Jan. 9, 2014.
    Filed Jan. 28, 2014.
    Carney Richard Shegerian, Esquire, Trial, Shegerian & Associates, Santa Monica, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Elizabeth A. Falcone, Esquire, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Portland, OR, Christian Andreas Hickers-berger, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Costa Mesa, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: REINHARDT and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Home Depot terminated Greg Hatto’s employment on the stated ground that Hatto had threatened to harm a coworker. Hatto sued, contending that this reason was merely pretext and that he was in fact fired in retaliation for having reported that same coworker for violating Home Depot’s return policy. Hatto raises three claims under California law: wrongful termination in violation of public policy, breach of an implied contract to terminate for good cause only, and defamation. The district court granted summary judgment to Home Depot, and we affirm.

Hatto’s claim that he was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy fails as a matter of law because his activity of reporting his coworker benefitted only Home Depot, and not the public. “When an employee’s disclosure of information to his employer serves only the employer’s private interest, the employee has not stated a claim for wrongful termination” in violation of public policy. Rivera v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 331 F.3d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir.2003) (citing Gould v. Md. Sound Indus., Inc., 31 Cal.App.4th 1137, 37 Cal. Rptr.2d 718, 725 (1995)).

Next, assuming without deciding that there was an implied contract not to terminate except for good cause, because Home Depot terminated Hatto after it conducted an investigation, allowed Hatto a chance to respond, weighed the credibility of the people interviewed, and concluded that Hatto had violated the workplace policy against threatening a coworker with physical violence, Hatto raises no genuine issue of material fact as to his termination for good cause. See Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall Int'l, Inc., 17 Cal.4th 93, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 900, 948 P.2d 412, 422 (1998).

Finally, Hatto’s claim of defamation fails as a matter of law because the statements he alleges to be defamatory were privileged, see King v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 152 Cal.App.4th 426, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 359, 372 (2007), and privileged statements are not subject to defamation claims, see Smith v. Maldonado, 72 Cal.App.4th 637, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 397, 402 (1999). Hatto’s compelled self-defamation claim fails because he has raised no issue of material fact that there was a “strong compulsion” to tell prospective employers why he had been terminated by Home Depot. See Davis v. Consol. Freightways, 29 Cal. App.4th 354, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 438, 448 (1994).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.