OpenJurist

876 F2d 897 Soto v. Coca Cola Usa a Division of Coca Cola Company

876 F.2d 897

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Edward SOTO, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COCA COLA USA, A DIVISION OF the COCA COLA COMPANY, a
Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 88-2870.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 9, 1989.
Decided June 2, 1989.

Before HUG, SCHROEDER and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM*

2

Edward Soto, Jr., appeals the district court's order granting Coca-Cola's motions for reconsideration and summary judgment in a breach of employment contract action.1 We affirm.

3

In Kinoshita v. Canadian Pacific Airlines, 724 P.2d 110 (Haw.1986), the Hawaiian Supreme Court addressed the conditions under which an employer's statements or personnel manuals modify an at-will employment agreement. The court's discussion suggests two conditions must exist. First, the statements or manuals must have been widely distributed to the employees as a class. Second, the employer must have induced employee reliance on the statements or manuals.

4

In this case, both conditions are absent. Soto bases his argument on Coca-Cola's Standard Personnel Guide ("SPG"). Coca-Cola put forth uncontroverted factual evidence that the SPG went only to managers on a need-to-know basis and was distributed in the form of numbered copies whose reproduction or circulation to other employees was forbidden. Soto has not offered any factual evidence suggesting an intention on Coca-Cola's part to create general employee reliance on the SPG. The limited distribution policy evinces quite the opposite intent.

5

We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.

6

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

1

We consider only the order dated May 6, 1988, which was the subject of a final judgment on May 13, 1988