Case Name: Rick PANG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-02
Citations: 156 F. App'x 909
Docket Number: No. 04-35929
Parties: Rick PANG, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before: FERGUSON, KLEINFELD, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 156
Pages: 909–910

Head Matter:
Rick PANG, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 04-35929.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 15, 2005.
Decided Dec. 2, 2005.
Glenn Nathan Solomon, Esq., Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Edwin A. Harnden, Esq., Barran Liebman, LLP, Portland, OR, for DefendantAppellee.
Before: FERGUSON, KLEINFELD, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rick Pang appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to Lockheed Martin on Pang's employment claims. We affirm.
Pang asserts that the district court's order should be overturned because there is a triable issue of material fact over whether Lockheed Martin constructively discharged him. But Pang failed to introduce any evidence of constructive discharge. The testimony upon which he relies is inadmissible hearsay. Even if admissible, it does not support a claim that his workplace was "objectively unreasonable" but rather that his doctors approved of Pang's own decision to quit for health reasons.
Because Pang failed to introduce any admissible evidence supporting his constructive discharge claim, the district court's decision is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. See Bulthuis v. Rexall Corp., 789 F.2d 1315, 1316 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam).
. See Lawson v. Washington, 296 F.3d 799, 805 (9th Cir.2002).