Opinion ID: 173255
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Grant of summary judgment to Microsoft on breach of contract claim

Text: We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court. Summary judgment is only appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Hennagir v. Utah Dept. of Corrs., 587 F.3d 1255, 1261 (10th Cir.2009) (citations omitted). Mr. Wallace argues that summary judgment on his breach of contract claim was error because there remains a material factual issue as to the existence of a 2003 employment agreement. In 2000, Mr. Wallace signed an offer letter and an employment contract expressly providing that his employment was terminable at will, with or without cause, and that any modification to the agreements required a signed writing by both Mr. Wallace and an officer of Microsoft. But Mr. Wallace was unable to produce any such written, signed agreement. Instead, he argues that emails in the record infer the existence of such a contract. The district court held that [w]hile these emails may allow a reasonable jury to find that Wallace had an employment dispute with a previous supervisor to require his position be changed, we do not believe that a rational jury, viewing the emails and facts set forth in the record in a light most favorable to Wallace, could infer the existence of an express employment contract, signed by an officer of Microsoft setting a minimum employment period, and containing language superceding the 2000 Agreement. Wallace v. Microsoft Corp., No. 07-2379-EFM, 2009 WL 1636103, at  (D.Kan. June 11, 2008). We have reviewed the record and the applicable law, and we agree with the district court whose decision on this issue we affirm for substantially the reasons stated by that court.