T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

* * T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T CH RI STI A N BEH REN D D O SCH ER, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. S WI F T T R AN S P OR T AT I ON , D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 35192 D . C. N o . 3 : 1 0 - c v - 0 5 5 4 5 - RBL ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R ona l d B . L e i ght on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r13, 2012 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T R O T T , an d W . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C hri st i an B ehre nd D oscherappeal s pro se fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s s um m ary j ud gm enti n h i s di vers i ty a ct i on ar i si ng fr om hi s e m pl oym entw i th S w i ft T r a ns port a t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de 

# FI LED NO V 20 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 35192 2 n o v o , a n d m a y a f

f irm o n a n y g r o u n d s u p p o r te d b y th e r e c o r d . E n lo w v . Sa le mKe i z e rY e l low C ab C o. , 389 F . 3d 802, 811 ( 9th C i r . 2004) . W e a f f i rm i n pa r ta nd d is m is s in p a rt. T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l y gr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e nton the c l a i m a l l e gi ng w rong ful construct i ve di sc harge i n v i ol at i on of pu bl i c pol i cybecause D oscher f a i l e d t o r a i s e age nui ne di s put e of m a t e r i a l f

a c ttha tthe r e i s a“ c l e a rm a nda t e of p u b lic p o lic y ” th a t alo a d b e w e ig h e d b e f o r e ad r iv e rle a v e s as h ip p e r . H ub ba rd v. S p o ka n e C o u n ty , 50 P . 3d 60 2, 60 6 (W as h. 20 02 ) ( “ [C ] ou rt s s ho ul d p roce ed cau t i o u sl y i f cal l ed u p o n t o d ecl are p u b l i c p o l i cy ab se ntsom e pr i orl e gi s l a t i ve or j udi c i a l e xpr e s s i on on the s ubj e c t . ” ( c i t a t i on a nd i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks o m itte d ) ) ; s e e al

s o Sny de rv . Me d. Se r v . C or p. of E . W as h. , 35 P . 3d 1158, 1161 (W as h. 20 01 ) ( construct i ve di sc harge i s nota s epar at e c ause of ac t i on ). T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l y gr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e nton the c l a i m a l l e gi ng b r e a c h o f

p r o m is e o f

s p e c if ic tr e a tm e n t b e c au s e D o s c h e rf a ile d to r a is e atr iab le di sput e thatS w i ft ’ s a l l eged prom i se t o send h i m on l y t o shi pp er s w i th sca l es w as i n an “ em pl oyee m anual . . . or si m i l ardo cum ent . ” Ko rs lu n d v . D y n C o r p T r iC i t i es Servs. , Inc. , 12 5 P . 3d 11 9, 12 8 (W as h. 20 05 ). S u m m a ry ju d g m e n t w a s p r o p e ro n th e f a ilu r e - to - a c c o m m o d a te c la im be c aus e D os c he rf

a i l e d t o r a i s e atr i abl e di s put e tha tthe r e que s t e d a c c om m oda t i on11- 35192 3 w as “ m edi ca l l y nec es sary . ” R i ehl v. Foo dm aker

, Inc. , 94 P . 3d 930, 934 ( W a s h. 20 04 ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r ly g r a n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th e f r au d c la im because D oscherfa i l ed t o rai se a tri abl e di sput e thatS w i ftm i sr epre se nt ed an e x is tin g f

a c t o rd id n o t in te n d to a tte m p t to k e e p its a lle g e d p r o m is e . Se e B lanton v . Mobi l O i l C or p. , 7 2 1 F . 2 d 1 2 0 7 , 1 2 1 8 ( 9 th C i r . 1 9 8 3 ) ( “ Un d e rWa s h i n g t o n l a w, p r o m is s o ry f

r au d o n ly e x is ts w h e n ap r o m is e is m a d e w ith ‘ap r e s e n t in te n t n o t to att em ptthe future f

ul fi l l m entof the prom i se [ ] . ’ ” ( ci t at i on om i tt ed)) ; St i leyv. B lock , 92 5 P . 2d 19 4, 20 4 (W as h. 19 96 ) ( el em ent s of f raud ). T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l y gr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e nton the ne gl i ge nc e a nd negl i genti nfl i ct i on of em ot i on al di stre ss cl ai m s bec ause D oscherfa i l ed t o rai se a tri abl e di sput e thatS w i ftow ed hi m a duty t o ensure thathe coul d w ei gh hi s l oad b e f o r e le a v in g as h ip p e r . Se e S tr o n gv . T e r r e ll , 195 P . 3d 977, 982 ( W a s h. C t . A pp. 20 08 ) ( el em ent s of negl i genti nfl i ct i on of em ot i on al di stre ss ); Ke nne dy v . Se a-L and Serv . , Inc. , 81 6 P . 2d 75 , 84 (W as h. C t . A pp . 19 91 ) ( el em ent s of negl i gence). T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r ly g r a n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th e o u tr a g e c la im b e c au s e D o s c h e rf

a i l e d t o r a i s e atr i ab l e d i s p u t e th a tSw i f t ’ s c o n d u c tw a s “ e x tr e me and o utra geou s. ” Str ong , 19 5 P . 3d at98 1 (el em ent s of outra ge).11- 35192 4 T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l y gr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e nton the de f a m a t i on c la im b e c au s e D o s c h e rf a ile d to r a is e atr iab le d is p u te a s to th e r e q u ir e d e le m e n ts . See Mohrv . G r ant , 10 8 P . 3d 76 8, 77 3 (W as h. 20 05 ) ( el em ent s of def am at i on ). C o n tr a ry to D o s c h e r ’s c o n te n tio n , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrb y s u as p o n te g r a n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to S w if t a f te rD o s c h e rm o v e d f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. See B i rd v. G laci erE lec tri c C oo p. , Inc. , 2 5 5 F . 3 d 1 1 3 6 , 1 1 5 2 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( “ [ A] courthas pow er s u a s

p o n te t o g rantsum m ary j ud gm entt o a no n-m ov antw hen there has bee n a sum m ary j ud gm entm ot i on by on e party and no cr oss- m ot i on . ”) . W e do notc ons i de ra r gum e nt s a nd a l l e ga t i ons r a i s e d f orthe f i r s tt i m e on ap p e a l. Se e P adge t t

v . W r i ght , 58 7 F . 3d 98 3, 98 5 n . 2 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( per c uri am ). W e lac kju risd icti o n to re v iew th e d istrict co u rt’s o rd erd en yin g D o sc h er ’s m o tio n f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n , a n d th e r e f o r e d is m is s th a t p o r tio n o f th e ap p e a l. See F e d. R . A pp. P . 4( a ) ( 4) ( B ) ( i i ) ( appe l l a ntm us tf i l e anot i c e of

appe a l ora m e nd a previ ou sl y f

i l ed no t i ce of appeal t o sec ure r evi ew of a post -j ud gm entorder) . D oscher ’ s m ot i on t o stri ke S w i ft ’ s r es po nse t o h i s c i t at i on of supp l em ent al author i t i e s a nd r e que s tt o s tr i ke S w i f t ’ s oppos i t i on t o s um m a ry j udgm e nta nd appe ndi c e s a r e de ni e d. A F F IR M E D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.