Inglis v. Feinerman, 82-4404
| Decision Date | 08 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-4404,82-4404 |
| Parties | 114 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3481, 99 Lab.Cas. P 55,413, 1 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 160 James G. INGLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Milton FEINERMAN, in his individual capacity as President of Federal Loan Bank of San Francisco; and Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, a corporation, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Elizabeth G. Leavy, Carroll, Burdick & McDonough, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Robert M. Lieber, Robert L. Zaletel, Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff & Tichy, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Before CHOY and ALARCON, Circuit Judges, and D. WILLIAMS *, District Judge.
Appellant James G. Inglis [Inglis] appeals a District Court grant of summary judgment which upheld his termination of employment from appellee Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco [Bank] without a disciplinary hearing as outlined in the Bank's personnel manual. The Bank claims it terminated Inglis for an admitted breach of employee confidentiality.
The Bank was created under the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1421 et. seq. In 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1432(a), the Act provides in pertinent part:
the bank shall have the power to--select, employ and fix the compensation of such officers, employees, attorneys, and agents,--and to dismiss at pleasure such officers, employees and agents;
(Emphasis added.)
These provisions are similar to language in 12 U.S.C. Sec. 341 (Fifth) of the Federal Reserve Act which gives Federal Reserve Banks the power to "dismiss at pleasure such officers or employees." In Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir.1981), this court construed that section as preempting employee claims of wrongful discharge based on state law.
The plaintiff in Bollow was terminated by a Federal Reserve Bank after eleven years of employment. He sued for reinstatement, but the bank contended it had authority to fire him by virtue of the "dismiss at pleasure" provision of 12 U.S.C. Sec. 341 (Fifth).
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that (1) federal law preempted California law and allowed the Federal Reserve Bank to dismiss its employees "at pleasure," and (2) a letter from the bank president to plaintiff assuring him of continued employment was ultra vires under the Federal Reserve Act and thus void.
In the instant case, Inglis argues that since the Bank adopted an employee manual which stated that employment was based on "good faith" and established procedures for disciplinary actions, the Bank should not be permitted to dismiss him except for certain causes. First, we note that this manual was not adopted by the Bank until well after Inglis was hired. Notwithstanding this difficulty with appellant's claim, we follow Bollow and hold that attempts to create employment rights from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peatros v. Bank of America, B116465
...Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. § 1432(a)) preempted state employment discrimination laws--Ana Leon, supra, 823 F.2d 928, Inglis v. Feinerman (9th Cir.1983) 701 F.2d 97, and Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (9th Cir.1981) 650 F.2d 1093. As noted, the court in Ana Leon, supra, f......
-
Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp.
...held that the at-pleasure provision in the Federal Home Loan Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1432(a), bars state tort wrongful discharge claims. See Inglis, 701 F.2d at 97. In Inglis, we considered a wrongful discharge claim based upon the California law exception to at-will termination under Tameny v. At......
-
Aalgaard v. Merchants Nat. Bank, Inc.
...supra, 569 F.Supp. at page 790. is in violation of 12 U.S.C.A. § 341, Fifth, and, therefore, unenforceable." (Ibid.) In Inglis v. Feinerman (9th Cir.1983) 701 F.2d 97, the Ninth Circuit, this time construing the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, reached the same conclusion with respect to a Tamen......
-
Weber v. First Federal Bank
...of appeals is representative of this first line of cases, which shall be referred to as the "at pleasure" cases. See Inglis v. Feinerman, 701 F.2d 97 (9th Cir.1983). It is important to note that none of these "at pleasure" cases apply or interpret the Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA) or the lan......