N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JILL DOR

AN-SLEVIN, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. UNITED PAR C E L SER

VIC E, INC ., De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-35093

D.C . No. 2:12-c v-00068-SEH
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Sam E. Ha ddon, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 3, 2017 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : KOZINSKI and W . FLETC HER , C irc uit Judge s, a nd TUNHEIM , ** C hie f Distric t

Judge
. 

# F IL ED MAY03 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** The Honora

ble John R . Tunhe im , C hie f Unite d State s Distric t C ourt Judge for the Distric t of M inne sota , sitting by de signa tion.Jill Dora n-Sle vin a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of he r m otion for judgm e nt a s a

m a tte r of la

w a nd its gra nt of judgm e n t a s a

m a tte r of la

w to Unite d Parc e l Se rvic e , Inc . (“ UPS” ) re ga rding he r re ta lia

t ion c la im , the distric t c ourt’ s gran t of judgm e n t a s a m a tte r of la w to UPS on he r wrongful disc ha rge c la im s in viola tion of publicpolic y

an d writte n

pe rsonne l polic ie s, a

nd the distric t

c ourt’ s jury instruc tions on her wrongful disc ha rge without good c a

use c la im
. Dora

nSle v in a lso re que sts a

ne w tria l on the grounds of distric t c ourt bia s . W e a ffirm
. First, issue s not pre s e rve d in the pre tria l orde r are e lim inate d from the
a c tion. Hunt v . C

ty . of Orange , 672 F.3d 606, 617 (9th C ir. 2012). He re , the pre t ria l orde r lim i te d the re t a lia tion c la i m s to a

the ory tha t UPS te rm inate d

DoranSle v in in re ta lia

t ion for a disc rim ination c la im

Dora n-Sle vin file d with theEEOC
. It is undispute d tha

t UPS did not le arn a

b out the EEOC c l a im

prior to te rm inating Doran-Sle vin, a

n d UPS obje c te d to Dora

n-Sle vin e xpa

nding he r re ta lia

tion c la im s be y ond the the ory

in the pre tria l orde r. Thus, thedistric t c ourt did not err in gran ting UPS judgm e nt a s a m a tte r of la

w, a s no re a sona

ble juror c ould ha

ve de te rm i ne d UPS te rm inate d Dora n-Sle vin ba se d on the EEOC c la im
. Se c ond, a disc ha rge is wrongful if “the e m ploy e r viola

te d the e xpre ss provisions of its own writte n pe rsonne l polic y . ” M ont. C ode Ann. § 39-2- 904(1)(c ). In re sponse to Dora n-Sle vin’ s April 2012 le tte r, UPS followe d its

2Em

ploy e e Dispute R e solution (“ EDR ” ) program by c onduc ting a

n inve stiga

tion,
and the progra

m did not prohibit UPS from te rm inating Dora

n-Sle vin for a

re a son se pa ra te and unre l a te d to tha

t le tte r. Additiona lly , Dora n-Sle vin’ s M a

y 2012 le tte r writte n in re sponse to UPS’ s propose d se p ara tion a g re e m e nt a nd for the purpose of

“ working towa

rds re s olution through [a] se pa ration a gre e m e nt” did not trigger the
a pplic a tion of the EDR

progra m . Thus, thedistric t

c o urt did not err in gra

nting UPS judgm e nt a s a m a tte r of la w. Third, the jury

instruc tions re ga

rding disc ha

rge for a le gitim a te busine ss re a s on, disc ha

rge for fa ilure to obe y

la wful dire c t ive s , a

nd a n e m p loy e e ’ s obliga tion to obey

the e m ploy e r a c c urat e ly

re fle c te d M o nta

na la w. M ont. C ode Ann. § 39-2-404; My

sse v . Marte ns , 926 P.2d 765, 769-71 (M ont. 1996); Buc k v . Billings Mont. C

he v role t, Inc
. , 811 P.2d 537, 540 (M ont. 1991). Additiona lly , Doran-Sle vin did not offer any a uthority a s to why

the jury instruc tion tha

t a ll pa rtie s , inc luding a

c orporation, a

re e qua l be fore the la

w is ina pplic a ble or pre j udic i a l. Fourth, “ judic ia l c om

m e nts on the e vide nc e are pe rm issible ,” and whe n c ounse l did not obje c t to a lle g e dly im prope r state m e nts, the C ourt re vie ws only for pla i n e rror. Unite d State

s v . Spe nc e r , 1 F.3d 742, 746 (9th C ir. 1992). As DoranSle v in’ s c ounse l did not obje c t to thedistric t c ourt’ s c om m e nts a nd be c a u se the 3re c o rd supporte d those sta te m e nts, the C ourt finds no pla in e rror in a dm o nishing Doran-Sle vin’ s c ounse l for spe c ulative ly arguing tha

t UPS de sire d tha

t DoranSle v in would a dm it fa

ult, c onte nding UPS fa ile d to follow its EDR program whe n that c la im wa s no longe r an issue in the c a se , atte m pting to a sk a

witne ss a bout
m a tte rs not in the

re c ord, a nd sta ting c ounse l’ s pe rsona l opinion a s to the
c re d ibility

of witne sse s . AFFIRM E D.

4