Cejka v. Vectrus Sys. Corp.

Decision Date14 February 2018
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 15–cv–02418–MEH
Citation291 F.Supp.3d 1231
Parties Victor CEJKA, James Walker, Steven Wascher, Jamie Lytle, and Paul Cross, Plaintiffs, v. VECTRUS SYSTEMS CORPORATION, f/k/a Exelis Systems Corporation, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Colorado

Julian C. Wierenga, Richard Anthony Fiore, Steven Michael Hartmann, Terrence Joseph Sheahan, Freeborn & Peters LLP, Chicago, IL, Raymond W. Martin, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff.

Emily Fontelle Keimig, Elizabeth B. Chilcoat, Sherman & Howard, L.L.C, Denver, CO, Ann Kotlarski, Payne & Fears, Los Angeles, CA, Daniel F. Lula, Payne & Fears LLP, Irvine, CA, Glenn H. Schlabs, Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., Colorado Springs, CO, for Defendants.

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF PAUL CROSS' FIRST AND THIRD CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiffs initiated this employment action against Defendants on October 30, 2015, alleging essentially that they suffered adverse employment actions in retaliation for reporting what they believed to be improper conduct affecting security at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan. Plaintiffs allege claims against their former employer, Defendant Vectrus Systems Corp. ("Vectrus"), for common law retaliatory termination (Claim I); violation of 10 U.S.C. § 2409, the Department of Defense whistleblower statute (Claim II); and common law outrageous conduct (Claim III).1 Here, Vectrus seeks summary judgment in its favor on Plaintiff Paul Cross' ("Cross") first and third claims for relief. The Court finds Cross has raised genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Vectrus wrongfully discharged him, but he has failed to do so demonstrating that Vectrus engaged in outrageous conduct. Therefore, the Court grants in part and denies in part Vectrus' motion.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Court makes the following findings of fact viewed in the light most favorable to Cross, who is the non-moving party in this matter.2

1. On June 27, 2007, Fluor Corporation ("Fluor") entered into contract number W52P1J–07–D–0008 (the "Prime Contract") with the U.S. Department of the Army to provide services to the Logistics Civilian Augmentation Program ("LOGCAP") in Afghanistan.

2. Vectrus, previously known as Exelis Systems Corporation and ITT Systems Corporation, is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

3. On June 20, 2008, Vectrus entered into a subcontract with Fluor, titled "Blanket Ordering Agreement," to provide support for the LOGCAP program in Afghanistan (the "BOA").

4. Plaintiff Paul Cross was hired by Vectrus effective January 28, 2010 as a lead security investigator on the LOGCAP program. Deposition of Paul Cross, January 30, 2017 ("Cross Dep.") 111: 4–7.

5. Prior to working for Vectrus, Cross served in the U.S. Air Force Security Police and the U.S. Army. Id. 17: 3–9; 60:14–61:2.

6. At Vectrus, Cross, along with other security investigators (or "screeners") including Plaintiffs, worked at Bagram Air Force Base ("BAF") in Afghanistan in a Force Protection Screening Cell ("FPSC")3 and reported to Brandon Spann ("Spann"), senior security supervisor, who reported to Kevin Daniel ("Daniel"), regional manager, who reported to Richard Diaz ("Diaz"), program manager.

7. The security investigators, including Cross, conducted interviews and investigations required for the issuance of access badges to over 6,500 non-military personnel for daily entry to the military base. Investigators prepared investigation reports (known as "dossiers") which, along with fingerprints, iris scans, and facial photos, were entered into the Biometric Automated Toolset System computer database ("BATS"), a security database maintained by the Department of Defense ("DOD") and shared with the United States' NATO allies. Answer ¶ 30, ECF No. 104; Deposition of Andrew Albright, Dec. 21, 2016 ("Albright Dep.") 19: 11–25; 22: 5–24: 4.

8. The maintenance of accurate information in BATS was vital to the security of the base and the military's other bases throughout the world. Albright Dep. 26: 2–13; 27: 2–19.

9. The dossiers summarized the security investigations and recommendations for access to the base (as well as other privileges such as access to laptops, cell phones, or even in some instances weapons), but only the military was authorized to issue access badges. Deposition of Victor Cejka, January 26, 2017 ("Cejka Dep.") 109: 23–110: 16.

10. While the screening cell was supervised by Spann, Cejka also reported to the military oversight officer, Sergeant First Class John Salinas ("SFC Salinas").4 Cejka Dep. 121: 15–21.

11. In January or February 2013, Spann told a group of "leads," including Cross, "If I want somebody to have access to BATS, you will...allow them access, and I don't [care] if they're a foreign national or whatever. If they're from Fluor, you give them access." Cross Dep. 170: 5–18. Cross refused, then reported Spann's directive to another security lead, two screening cell managers, and Daniel. Id. 170: 19–22; 171: 13–173: 19. He also reported the directive to military oversight. Id. 174: 2–18.

12. In April or May 2013, Vectrus Human Resources ("HR") personnel asked Cross to complete a statement in response to a complaint from Agron Fana, biometrics clerk, following a meeting at which Gary Blanchard, security supervisor, "counseled" Fana about his error in "merging two BAT dossiers"; Cross was also present in the meeting. Cross Dep. 48: 11–49: 15. Cross responded to HR in or about July 2013 by email (id. 254: 19–255: 4), and at the bottom of the statement, Cross wrote, "Look, I need to talk to you in person, face-to-face, because I have some information about other stuff going on that involves Agron Fana specifically and Kevin Daniel....[p]lease get ahold [sic] of me as soon as you can." Id. 49: 15–24.

13. Cross testified that HR personnel never responded to his request and, thus, he did not know who to trust at Vectrus. Id. 95: 8–22.

14. Cross had wished to discuss with HR his belief that "in 2011 and 2012 Agron Fana had been issuing badges and doling out privileges to [third country national] friends of his without authorization from the U.S. military. Kevin Daniel and Brandon Spann knew of this but swept it under the rug and allowed Agron Fana to remain working at the FPSC in a trusted position."

He suspected that the same conduct was happening in 2013. Id. 255: 5–24.

15. Cross also testified that he confronted Spann about Spann giving information from the screening cell to Fluor officials, particularly to Jim Brown, Fluor security specialist, since all such information was "proprietary knowledge...for the U.S. government" and "we are not allowed to talk to any other company, civilian or otherwise, about it, especially without military oversight's approval." Cross Dep. 96: 12–97: 25. Cross brought this matter also to the attention of Daniel, Specialist Siewell (who worked in military oversight), and SFC Salinas. Id. 99: 23–100: 12.

16. Cross provided to military oversight a report he received from Plaintiff Jamie Lytle that another Vectrus employee, Carl Lynch, was permitting drugs, alcohol, and prostitutes to come on base through the "turnstiles" at the entrance. Id. 196: 24–197: 7; 198: 4–21. He "never mentioned Brandon Spann" when discussing drugs or prostitution to the different agencies to which he reported. Id. 193: 25–194: 7.

17. In or about July or August 2013, some security investigators reported to Cross that another security investigator, Marc Salazar, was conducting "secret interviews and interrogations in his office...at the direction of Brandon Spann." Cross Dep. 41: 16–23.

18. Cross testified that one day thereafter, he saw Jim Brown leave Salazar's office, look at Cross nervously, and leave through the back door. Cross asked Salazar, "What was Jim Brown doing in there with the interpreter and the subject you were interviewing?" He answered, "Well, he was participating in the interview." Cross said, "Well, you know we have to get military oversight approval [because before we have anybody, even FBI, participating in the interview, we have to get their approval]." Salazar said, "Well, Brandon Spann authorized that." Cross attests that he immediately went to Brandon Spann and asked him if military oversight had approved Jim Brown's attendance in the interview. Spann "kind of looked away and hesitated and then back" to Cross and said, "Yeah, hehe authorized it." Id. 42: 2–22.

19. Cross testified that immediately thereafter, he went to military oversight—"a DOD civilian by the name of Siebert, Seaquest, something like that [Specialist Siewell]—and asked him, "Sir, did you authorize Jim Brown from Fluor to participate in an interview today with Marc Salazar?" Siewell answered, "No. I've never even heard of that." Cross asked, "Have you ever authorized that?" Siewell said no, he had not. Id. 42: 23–43: 8; 98: 14–99: 8.

20. Cross then went straight to Kevin Daniel and reported what he saw and heard saying, "We're not allowed to do that. We can't have anybody participating in interviews outside of the screening cell unless military oversight approves." Daniel responded that he would talk to Brandon Spann and make sure it did not happen again. Thereafter, Daniel and Spann "avoided" Cross and rarely talked to him. Cross got the feeling that he "had stumbled onto something" and that Spann and Daniel were "up to something," so Cross felt he had to "watch [his] back." Id. 43: 9–22.

21. Cross testified that he also saw Brown come out of the office of another security investigator, Bernard Hall, whose office was located across from Cross' office. Hall told Cross that Brown had attended the interview at Spann's direction and without the approval of military oversight. Id. 215:15–216: 14.

22. SFC Salinas testified that Cross came to him in or about July 2013 and reported that Spann Brown had been sitting in on interviews that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Mullen v. S. Denver Rehab., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • May 20, 2020
    ...and (3) the plaintiff incurred severe emotional distress which was caused by the defendant's conduct. Cejka v. Vectrus Sys. Corp., 291 F. Supp. 3d 1231, 1249 (D. Colo. 2018) (citing Culpepper v. Pearl Street Bldg., Inc., 877 P.2d 877, 882 (Colo. 1994) (en banc)). A defendant's actions must ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT