Larry Luchetti v. Hershey Company, a Delaware corporation

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LARRY LUCHETTI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HERSHEY COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-17193
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-01629-SI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 14, 2011**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, NOONAN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Luchetti appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of The
Hershey Company (Hershey). The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28
FILED
JAN 27 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) and we have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
Both California Labor Code § 1102.5 (West 2010) and § 6310 (West 2003)
require that Luchetti prove he expressed his opposition to Hershey’s safety
practices or lack thereof. Daly v. Exxon Corp., 63 Cal. Rptr. 2d 727, 729 (Cal. Ct.
App. 1997); Taylor v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 873, 881–82 (Cal.
Ct. App. 2000); Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 116 P.3d 1123, 1133 (Cal. 2005).
Luchetti argues that his oral complaints to Soles, his supervisor, together with his
email with a copy to Soles, create a triable issue of fact as to whether Luchetti was
expressing opposition to participation in the status quo, which included ongoing
violations of Cal-OSHA. The district court disagreed and so do we. Neither
Luchetti’s email, nor his conversation with Soles, is evidence of any opposition to
Hershey’s safety practices. The evidence shows only that Luchetti discussed how
to best address safety practices at the plant with his supervisors and co-worker. In
addition, none of Luchetti’s evidence shows that he complained about the legality
of Hershey’s practices or procedures. See Holmes v. General Dynamics Corp., 22
Cal. Rptr. 2d 172, 181 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993). Finally, Luchetti failed to rebut
Hershey’s evidence that his termination was for a legitimate reason that was not a
pretext for retaliation.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --