Summary
granting summary judgment against plaintiff because “[t]here was no testimony that he stayed with [company] because of any promises of job security” and “reliance cannot be inferred from the mere fact that an employee stays on the job with the awareness that employer policies provide some degree of job security”
Summary of this case from Baker v. City of SeatacOpinion
No. 50366-9-I.
February 24, 2003.
Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 00-2-07609-4, Charles S. French, J., entered February 15, March 29, and April 1, 2002.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Coleman, J., concurred in by Grosse and Kennedy, JJ.