Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Ageman v. AFG Industries, Inc.
Citation: 50 F. App'x 875Docket: No. 01-57034; D.C. No. CV-00-00993-VAP
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; November 13, 2002; Federal Appellate Court
Marlene Ageman appeals the district court's summary judgment dismissing her diversity claims against AFG Industries, Inc. The appellate court affirms the lower court's decision, determining Ageman failed to demonstrate genuine issues of material fact for her claims. It applies a de novo review standard and notes that federal courts utilize a federal summary judgment standard in diversity cases. Ageman did not provide prima facie evidence of a disability under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The definition of 'physical disability' includes conditions that significantly limit major life activities. Although Ageman cited her medical issues, including residual ovarian syndrome and fibromyalgia, she did not show that these conditions limited her ability to work or engage in major life activities. Evidence indicated she continued working post-surgery and only requested 'light duty' for brief periods, which the court notes does not constitute a disability under precedent. Additionally, Ageman's claim under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) fails because she did not adequately establish that she made an explicit request for medical leave. Instead, she provided notes for 'light duty' rather than formal leave requests, thus failing to meet the CFRA's notice requirements. Her public policy claims are dismissed as they are contingent upon her unsuccessful FEHA and CFRA claims. Lastly, Ageman did not present sufficient evidence to support her implied-in-fact contract claim. California law establishes a presumption of at-will employment in the absence of specific contract terms. Courts consider factors such as employer policies, length of service, and assurances of continued employment to determine if an implied-in-fact contract exists, but they exercise caution not to apply these factors too broadly. Time served alone, even with positive indicators from the employer, does not negate the at-will status of employment. Explicit at-will language in contracts is significant in assessing employment terms. In this case, Ageman acknowledged her at-will status through multiple signed forms, which undermines any claim against this presumption. Her claim for good faith and fair dealing fails due to the lack of supportive contract terms. Additionally, her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is barred by the exclusivity provision of California’s worker’s compensation law, which restricts tort recovery for injuries sustained in the course of employment unless they involve a violation of public policy. Ageman did not provide evidence of AFG’s conduct falling outside normal employment parameters or violating public policy, leading to the affirmation of the lower court's decision. The ruling is not to be published or cited except under specified Ninth Circuit rules.