Opinion ID: 167997
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Supplemental State Law Claims

Text: 24 The district court also granted Sygma summary judgment on Antonio's state law claims. We conclude that the district court did not err. The Sygma employee handbook, which Antonio relies on as the basis for her claims of promissory estoppel and breach of the good-faith-and-fair-dealing covenant, unmistakably declares that [t]he contents of the SYGMA handbook do not constitute an express or implied contract of employment, that the handbook is non-binding and is not intended to create, nor to be construed as a contract between SYGMA and one or all of its employees, and that SYGMA retains the right to terminate [Antonio's] employment at will. Aplt.App. at 148. Under Colorado law, [s]ummary judgment denying claims based on a handbook is appropriate if the employer has clearly and conspicuously disclaimed intent to enter a contract limiting the right to discharge employees. Ferrera v. Nielsen, 799 P.2d 458, 461 (Colo.Ct.App.1990); see also George v. Ute Water Conservancy Dist., 950 P.2d 1195, 1198 (Colo.Ct.App. 1997) (recognizing that promissory estoppel and contract-based claims fail if the employer has clearly and conspicuously disclaimed intent to enter into a contract limiting the right to discharge employees). Because Sygma clearly disclaimed any limitation on the at-will relationship, Antonio's state law claims fail as a matter of law. 25 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.