SANDRA HARMON V. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, No. 11-56898 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 12 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 11-56898 SANDRA J. HARMON, Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02979-GWVBK v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a Delaware corporation; JOHNSON & JOHNSON SALES AND LOGISTICS COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; NEUTROGENA CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, MEMORANDUM* Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 2, 2013** Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, BERZON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. * 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). Plaintiff-Appellant Sandra Harmon appeals the dismissal of her state law claims and the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them here. The dismissal of Harmon s state law claims was appropriate. Harmon signed a release and waiver upon her termination in which she agreed to waive all claims against Defendants in exchange for a larger severance package. The release did not comply with the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act ( OWBPA ), 29 U.S.C. § 626(f). But, the failure to comply with the OWBPA did not invalidate the release as to Harmon s state law claims because the OWBPA applies only to federal claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( ADEA ), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. See Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 U.S. 422, 427-28 (1998) (stating that the OWBPA applies only to ADEA claims). Because the OWBPA applies only to federal ADEA claims, noncompliance with the OWBPA has no effect on Harmon s state law claims. Thus, the district court properly dismissed Harmon s state law claims. Likewise, the district court properly granted summary judgment on Harmon s federal ADEA claim. Even if Harmon met the minimal prima facie burden, Defendants provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating 2 her as part of a reduction in workforce to reduce costs and because her position could be eliminated with little impact on Defendant Neutrogena s operations. See Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1211-12 (9th Cir. 2008). Harmon, in turn, failed to raise a genuine issue of fact concerning whether the facially legitimate reasons proffered by [Defendants] are pretextual. Id. at 1212. Because Harmon failed to meet her burden to raise a genuine issue of fact as to pretext, summary judgment in favor of Defendants was appropriate. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
