but Plaintiff refused. Subsequently, in March 2000, Defendant terminated Plaintiffs employment. This unlawful termination action followed. Plaintiff claims: (1) race discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant now seeks summary judgment on each claim. II. LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); see also Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n v. Patterson, 204 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). A fact is “material” when, under the
holding that the district courts error in exercising jurisdiction was harmless error because the court properly applied the relevant state law to the undisputed material facts and came up with the right answer recognizing the issue may be decided as a question of law if the facts are undisputed and support only one inference holding that where the relevant facts were undisputed the only question for review was whether there was any evidence or reason to support a dismissal for want of prosecution recognizing that this court reviews de novo the trial courts interpretation and application of a statute to undisputed facts recognizing that where material facts are undisputed the court only decides the application of relevant law