J. Garth Bailey, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Portland General Electric Company, Defendant-appellee, 119 F.3d 5 (9th Cir. 1997)

MEMORANDUM^* 

J. Garth Bailey appeals from summary judgment on his contract claim against his former employer, Portland General Electric Company. The district court had supplemental jurisdiction over the contract claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

PGE's question-and-answer publication did not constitute an offer to assign on the basis of incumbency the training specialist position that Bailey sought. Cases such as Sabin v. WillametteWestern Corp., 557 P.2d 1344 (Or.1976), Rose City Transit Co. v. City of Portland, 533 P.2d 339 (Or.1975), and McHorse v. Portland General Electric Co., 521 P.2d 315 (Or.1974), are inapposite as they involved the provision of employee benefits, and PGE's memos did not create a benefit plan, but merely explained the process by which PGE would downsize. In the absence of a meeting of the minds, there was no contract.

AFFIRMED.