Pelletier v. SBC Pacific Bell
Filed 3/29/06 Pelletier v. SBC Pacific Bell CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| ROBERT PELLETIER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SBC PACIFIC BELL, Defendant and Respondent. | H028365 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV817720) |
Plaintiff brought this action against his former employer, claiming retaliation, disability discrimination, and infliction of mental distress. The trial court granted the defendant's summary judgment motion. On appeal, plaintiff asserts that there are disputed issues of material fact with respect to his causes of action for retaliation and discrimination. As we explain below, we find no triable issues as to either claim. We therefore affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
From September 2001 to February 2002, plaintiff and appellant Robert Pelletier was employed as a customer service representative by defendant and respondent SBC Pacific Bell. Plaintiff's duties included responding to customer inquiries regarding billing and service issues, informing customers about defendant's products and services, and adding or removing services at the customer's request. In addition, plaintiff was required to comply with defendant's code of business conduct. Among other things, defendant's code of conduct prohibited its employees from â€
