A Franklin County Court of Common Pleas judgment was affirmed Tuesday, January 31st, when a three-judge appellate panel rejected a 63-year-old man's arguments that he was fired as a result of age-discrimination. The 10th District Court of Appeals panel found that contrary to Alden Crase's claims, his previous employer and case defendant, Shasta Beverages Inc., was entitled to summary judgment when Crase failed to provide any genuine findings of fact. "Though appellant makes several blanket assertions that he established the articulated reason for his employment termination was merely a pretext for age discrimination, such blanket assertions are not enough to defeat appellees' motions for summary judgment," 10th District Judge Lisa Sadler wrote for the court. Crase was an employee of Shasta for more than 40 years when the company terminated his employment Jan. 25, 2010, according to case summary. The termination came after a plant manager learned that Crase had removed an oxygen tank from the plant for personal reasons. Case summary indicates that Crase took the tank when a friend was experiencing breathing problems and returned it the following day. When he removed the tank, Crase tried to call three plant employees, but only spoke to a fellow production supervisor and did not receive permission from management. Upon discovering an inconsistency in the tank's oxygen level, the plant manager placed Crase on investigative leave and fired him shortly after. Crase filed suit for breach of contract, age discrimination, public policy, fraud and defamation but summary judgment was granted in favor of Shasta on all charges. He argued that summary was not proper for any of the charges. The panel found that for the age discrimination complaint Crase had to provide evidence that Shasta's reason for firing him was "merely a pretext for discrimination." It noted that Crase did not dispute that he took the oxygen tank, but rather argued that the offense did not warrant his termination. The panel disagreed, citing Shasta's employee handbook. "The handbook states that the severity of corrective action depends in part on the nature of the violation and may range from verbal counseling to dismissal," Sadler wrote, indicating Crase's argument was unfounded and overruling it. When considering Crase's breach of contract claim, the panel stated that Crase asserted an implied contract and again looked to the employee handbook which stated "nor should they be construed to create a contract of employment between the company and any of its employees." "Courts have held that where there exists language disavowing statements to the contrary, there can be no inference of contractual obligations between the parties," Sadler stated. The judges found that Crase indicated Shasta violated a public policy but failed to specify which policy and affirmed the trial court's granting of summary judgment for Shasta. "Appellant, however, failed to meet his requisite burden to articulate, by citation to its source, a specific public policy that Shasta violated when it discharged him," Sadler continued. Similarly, when Crase contended that Shasta had committed fraud when it told him he was entitled to an investigation, he failed to provide specific fraudulent statements and the panel rejected the argument. "Appellant has provided neither argument nor evidence to satisfy the elements required in a claim for fraud. Instead, appellant makes conclusory assertions," Sadler wrote of the panel's rejection. The appellate panel found that the alleged defamatory statements were protected and dismissed Crase's final claim. "We need not decide whether these statements can qualify as ones of a defamatory nature because the record reflects the challenged statements are protected by qualified privilege," Sadler concluded. "As appellant failed to present any evidence suggesting that appellees acted with actual malice, we conclude that they are entitled to a qualified privilege." Fellow 10th District Judge John Connor and Presiding Judge Susan Brown joined Sadler to form the majority. The case is cited Crase v. Shasta Beverages Inc., case No. 11AP-519.