Chawla v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

• Decision Date: 22 September 2014
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 13–cv–00333–PAB–KLM
• Citation: 69 F.Supp.3d 1107
• Parties: Muneeb Chawla, an individual, Plaintiff, v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, a Maryland corporation, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

69 F.Supp.3d 1107

Muneeb Chawla, an individual, Plaintiff

v.Lockheed Martin Corporation, a Maryland corporation, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 13–cv–00333–PAB–KLM

United States District Court, D. Colorado.

Signed September 22, 2014

Bryan E. Kuhn, Katherine Winnette Beckman, Bryan E. Kuhn, Counselor at Law, P.C., Denver, CO, John W. McKendree, Law Offices of John W. McKendree, LLC, Thornton, CO, for Plaintiff.

David Daniel Powell, Jr., Austin E. Smith, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Denver, CO, for Defendant.

ORDER

PHILIP A. BRIMMER, United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 34] filed by defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation (“LMC”). The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff Dr. Muneeb Chawla's Title VII claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and over plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

I. BACKGROUND¹

LMC designs and manufactures sophisticated technology systems for use in the space and defense industries. Docket No. 34 at 2, ¶ 1. Dr. Chawla began working for LMC as a Level 2 Electrical Engineer upon his graduation from college.Id. at 2, ¶ 2. Dr. Chawla was hired on August 19, 2004. Docket No. 34–2 at 6, p. 62:15–24. He completed his Ph.D. in 2009. Id. at 3, ¶ 12. Dr. Chawla is half Pakistani and half Indian and identifies as a Muslim. Id. at 2, ¶ 3. He did not discuss his religion with his co-workers. Id.

A. LMC HR Procedures

For each of its employees, LMC conducts a Performance Assessment and Development Review (“PADR”) at the end of each year, in which supervisors provide feedback regarding work performance. Id. at 2, ¶ 4; Docket No. 34–2 at 5, p. 59:15–21. Employees can receive one of five ratings: exceptional contributor, high contributor, successful contributor, basic contributor, or unsatisfactory. Docket No. 34 at 2, ¶ 4; see, e.g., Docket No. 34–6.

Employees assigned to special programs² who are rated as basic contributors are placed on a performance improvement plan (“PIP”). Docket No. 37–6 at 4, p. 35:21–23; see, e.g., Docket No. 35–2 at 1 (“Required for all Special Programs-assigned employees rated Basic Contributor ” (emphasis in original)). A PIP is created by an employee's manager and contains multiple objectives and goals for the employee to accomplish. See, e.g., Docket No. 37–7. The employee is given a timeframe in which to complete the PIP and must attend regular progress meetings with his or her manager. See, e.g., id. at 2.

A manager seeking to discipline an employee will generally file a complaint with human resources (“HR”), who will then investigate the complaint. See, e.g., Docket No. 41–14. Once an investigation is complete, disciplinary action is subject to multiple levels of review. The Administrative Review Committee (“ARC”) reviews “cases involving allegations of misconduct ... excluding ... minor infractions of policy such as traffic citations and attendance-related violations for which the discipline is less than a suspension....” Docket No. 36–2 at 5. The ARC has the authority to make final decisions for those infractions where the discipline is verbal or written counseling, but makes recommendations to the Executive Review Committee (“ERC”) for all those cases where the ARC determines suspension, demotion, or termination of employment is appropriate and for cases involving allegations to be reviewed only by the ERC, as discussed below. Id. The ERC makes the final disciplinary decision with respect to cases involving, as relevant here, “mischarging or miscoding of work time,” unlawful discrimination, harassment, or other misconduct involving violation of LMC's equal employment opportunity policies, and any misconduct where suspension, demotion, or termination has been recommended by the ARC. Id. at 5. An employee receiving discipline from the ERC may appeal the decision to the Executive Appeal Committee (“EAC”), which will review the employee's grounds for appeal and whether:

• The disciplined employee was made aware of the allegations.

• The disciplined employee was afforded an opportunity to provide an answer to the allegations both orally to the investigator, and in writing.

• The appropriate witnesses were interviewed.

• The ARC or ERC had reasonable basis in fact to make the determination.

• The discipline imposed was appropriate for the substantiated allegations.

Id. at 6. Per LMC policy, the ARC must ensure that the accused employee has had the opportunity to provide his or her account of the events to an investigator or in a written statement. Id. at 5. However, the accused employee is not permitted to personally appear before the ARC, ERC, or EAC.Id. at 5–6.

B. 2004–2011 PADRs

Dr. Chawla's 2004 PADR was completed by Gary Gardner. Docket No. 34–5 at 1. Mr. Gardner rated Dr. Chawla as a basic contributor. Id. In 2005, Dr. Chawla's supervisor, Mark Evans, rated Dr. Chawla as a successful contributor. Docket No. 34–6 at 1. In 2006, the work area Dr. Chawla was involved in was subcontracted out, which resulted in Dr. Chawla being placed in LMC's layoff pool. Docket No. 34 at 2, ¶ 7. Rodger Nichols selected Dr. Chawla to work in Military Support Programs (“MSP”) in an analysis group and, between 2006 and June or July of 2009, Mr. Nichols was Dr. Chawla's direct supervisor and remained a functional manager³ of Dr. Chawla until Dr. Chawla's termination. Docket No. 34–2 at 9, p. 75:4–10; Docket No. 34–7 at 2, pp. 9:25–11:3. In 2006 and 2007, Mr. Nichols rated Dr. Chawla a successful contributor and listed areas in which Dr. Chawla could improve. See Docket No. 34–8 at 1; Docket No. 34–9 at 1. In a 2008 PADR, Scott Perry rated Dr. Chawla a successful contributor. Docket No. 34–10. Mr. Nichols recalled that, toward the end of his tenure as Dr. Chawla's direct supervisor, some of Dr. Chawla's co-workers complained that Dr. Chawla was disrespecting them, but Mr. Nichols did not remember the exact details of such complaints. Docket No. 34–7 at 2–3, p. 12:19–13:24.

In June or July of 2009, Bradley Hooker became Dr. Chawla's direct supervisor and promoted Dr. Chawla to Systems Engineer Staff, a Level 4 position that resulted in a pay raise. Docket No. 34 at 3, ¶ 12; Docket No. 34–2 at 12, p. 86:3–4. In Dr. Chawla's 2009 and 2010 PADRs, Mr. Hooker rated Dr. Chawla as a successful contributor and also listed areas in which Dr. Chawla could improve. Docket No. 35; Docket No. 35–1 at 1. Mr. Hooker testified that, at the end of 2010, Dr. Chawla's performance deteriorated in such a way that Mr. Hooker contacted HR asking to retroactively change Dr. Chawla's PADR rating to “basic contributor,” but was unsuccessful. Docket No. 34–12 at 9, pp. 174:20–175:15. On April 26, 2011, Mr. Hooker placed Dr. Chawla on a PIP (the “2011 PIP”) because of dissatisfaction with Dr. Chawla's performance, including a customer complaint that Dr. Chawla failed to attend an off-site customer meeting and a customer complaint about “verification reports.” Id. at 1, pp. 119:20–120:11. Mr. Nichols signed the 2011 PIP, along with Mr. Hooker, Dr. Chawla, and Jennifer Kaplan from HR. Mr. Nichols testified that Dr. Chawla was placed on the 2011 PIP because of work-related errors and “relationship problems with a large percentage of the people he worked with.” Docket No. 35–2 at 2; Docket No. 34–7 at 8, pp. 59:25–60:4. The 2011 PIP contained five separate objectives, all of which Dr. Chawla was required under the PIP to complete by July 26, 2011. Docket No. 35–2 at 1–2. Mr. Hooker and Dr. Chawla regularly discussed Dr. Chawla's progress. Docket No. 34 at 4, ¶ 18. Dr. Chawla was rated unsuccessful on one objective, successful on one objective, and marginal on three objectives, Docket No. 41–12; however, the parties dispute whether this constitutes a successful completion of the 2011 PIP. Dr. Chawla stated, “I believe I successfully completed the [2011 PIP] based on my efforts.” Docket No. 41–2 at 3, ¶ 24. Mr. Nichols and Mr. Hooker testified that, in order to be removed from a PIP, an employee must complete all objectives, which Dr. Chawla failed to do. Docket No. 34–7 at 9, p. 66:3–18; Docket No. 34–12, at 4, pp. 133:18–134:8. Mr. Hooker testified that Mr. Hooker did not formally close the 2011 PIP with Dr. Chawla. Docket No. 37–8 at 6.

C. Mischarging Investigation

In 2011, Dr. Chawla was the subject of a LMC investigation for mischarging his time. In general, LMC employees' time is charged directly to LMC's customers. Docket No. 34 at 5, ¶ 23. MSP employees had classified computers at their workstations, which were used to perform work related to MSP. Docket No. 34 at 5, ¶ 22. Unclassified computers were also available in certain areas of the building where MSP employees worked and were shared among MSP employees. Docket No. 34–11 at 5, p. 34:15–17; Docket No. 34–3 at 1, p. 103:5–25. Unclassified computers were used, for example, to enter time, to complete training, or to check personal email. Docket No. 34–3 at 1, p. 104:1–6. On July 28, 2008, LMC issued a memorandum warning employees that there was “zero tolerance for improper use of Lockheed Martin assets, including its network.” Docket No. 36 at 1. The Personal Use of Lockheed Martin Assets policy stated that personal use of LMC property “must take place during nonwork time, be of reasonable duration and frequency, and must not interfere with or adversely affect the employee's performance or other organization requirements.” Docket No. 36–1 at 1, ¶ 3.1. The policy further admitted that, although “reasonable” use was difficult to quantify, the final determination of appropriate use under the policy “is reserved to cognizant management.” Id. at 2, ¶ 3.2.

The timing of the mischarging allegations and corresponding investigation is in dispute. Dr. Chawla argues that Mr. Hooker initiated the mischarging investigation “in response to and in retaliation for my travel plans to visit family in Qatar and Pakistan.” Docket No. 41–2 at 3, ¶ 22. On March 24, 2011, Dr. Chawla...