Johnson v. Lockheed Martin Corp., Case No.: 11-CV-01140-LHK
| Decision Date | 17 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 11-CV-01140-LHK |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | MARSHALL JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. and DOES 1-20, Defendants. |
JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS AND
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION
Plaintiff Marshall Johnson ("Plaintiff") brings this action against his employer, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation ("Defendant"), alleging race discrimination in the workplace and wrongful termination. On May 12, 2012, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.1 ECF No. 25 ("MSJ"). On May 29, 2012, Plaintiff opposed the motion. ECF No. 28 ("Pl.'s Opp'n"). On June 5, 2012, Defendant filed a reply. ECF No. 30 ("Reply"). On July 13, 2012, Plaintiff also filed an objection to Defendant's evidence offered in support of Defendant's motion for summary judgment and a motion for sanctions. ECF No. 34 ("Pl.'s Evid. Objection"). On July 16, 2012, Defendant filed its own motion to strike untimely evidence, surreply to supplemental opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and request for sanctions. ECF No. 35 ("Def.'s Evid. Objection"). The Court finds all of these motions appropriate for determination without oralargument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing on the motions set for July 19, 2012, is hereby VACATED. Having considered the parties' submissions and the relevant law, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary judgment; DENIES Plaintiff's evidentiary objection and motion for sanctions; GRANTS Defendant's motion to strike; and DENIES Defendant's motion for sanctions.
The following facts are undisputed unless specifically noted.
Defendant is a corporation that, among other things, designs, develops, tests, and manufactures aeronautic and defense products including space launch systems and interplanetary space craft. Bartman Decl. ¶ 3.
Plaintiff, an African-American male, worked at Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company ("LMSSC") from 1979 to 2009. Bartman Decl. ¶ 19; Johnson Decl. ¶¶ 1-2. In November 2009, Plaintiff was a Procurement Representative Senior Staff for the Rapid Procurement group in Sunnyvale, California. Johnson Dep. 129:19-20; Banford Dep. 128:3-7. Plaintiff reported to Gail Banford ("Banford"), Procurement Manager, who was based in Sunnyvale, and supervised 13 employees, including Plaintiff. Banford Dep. 30:7-22; 32:2-33:1. Banford in turn reported to Michele Freeman ("Freeman"), Director of Procurement, who is also African-American and was based in Denver, Colorado. See Bartmann Decl. ¶ 6. Freeman in turn reported to Gary Bartmann ("Bartmann"), Vice President of Procurement, also based in Denver. Bartmann Decl. ¶ 1.
In 2009, Defendant began cutting and reorganizing its workforce in response to U.S. government cuts in defense spending. Bartmann Decl. ¶¶ 8-11; Johnson Dep. 65:5-25; Winters Decl. Ex. E. In August 2009, Joanne Maguire, Executive Vice President of LMSSC, informed employees that she had "asked the lines of business and major functional organizations to review their respective budgets and take the necessary actions" to reduce the workforce. Winters Ex. E. Meanwhile, during 2009, LMSSC consolidated its procurement divisions in California, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Colorado into a single buying center based in Denver. Bartmann Decl. ¶ 10; Ramirez Dep. 42:12-43:3, 74:18-25.
As a result of this reorganization, LMSSC eliminated approximately 1,059 positions through voluntary and involuntary layoffs during 2009. Bartmann Decl. ¶ 14. Thirty-one procurement positions were eliminated nationwide, and nineteen positions, including Plaintiff's entire Rapid Procurement group, were eliminated in Sunnyvale. Bartmann Decl. ¶ 13; Ramirez Dep. 37:4-9, 74:12-25. Sixteen of the nineteen procurement positions in Sunnyvale were eliminated in November 2009. Bartmann Decl. ¶ 13. Of the thirty-one procurement positions eliminated nationwide in 2009, only four were held by African-Americans. Bartmann Decl. ¶ 21. Furthermore, the percentage of African-Americans in procurement remained virtually unchanged after the conclusion of the 2009 layoffs. Id.
According to Defendant's cited evidence, Bartmann assembled a leadership team, which included Freeman, to guide the Procurement consolidation and effectuate the necessary reductions in force. Bartmann Dep. 12:11-13:25; Ramirez Dep. 74:4-25. The Procurement leadership team engaged in a process called "right-sizing," whereby the team determined how many positions were required within each department to perform the available work. Ramirez Dep. 72:12-74:25. The Procurement leadership team determined that at least one person with Plaintiff's job code of E4575 in Procurement department TC3S had to be eliminated. Bartmann Decl. ¶ 16; Ramirez Dep. 37:4-9. Freeman and Bartmann identified Plaintiff's job for elimination because they determined that LMSSC did not need a level 5 employee in Rapid Procurement, such as Plaintiff, to relocate from Sunnyvale to Denver. Bartmann Decl. ¶¶ 15-16; Ramirez Dep. 37:4-9.
Bartmann and Freeman reviewed computer-generated scores that ranked individuals with the same job code within the same department based on the three most recent annual performance review ratings and years of service. Bartmann Dep. 9:22-10:3; 12:11-22; 16:23-17:3; 25:14-26:6; 30:3-11; 35:14-36:1; Bartmann Decl. ¶ 18; Winters Decl. Ex. F; Johnson Decl. ¶ 3.
Three individuals in department TC3S held Plaintiff's job code of E4575: Plaintiff, Gary Ehle ("Ehle"), and Dan Faria ("Faria"). Bartmann Dep. 26:14-27:3; Winters Ex. F. Of these three individuals, Ehle had the most favorable ranking (1.532),2 based in large part on his receipt of "Exceptional Contributor" performance review ratings. Bartmann Dep. 23:15-26:1; BartmannDecl. ¶ 18; Winters Ex. F. Faria and Plaintiff had identical scores (2.755), as both received "Successful Contributor" ratings for each of the prior three years and had identical tenure of 30 years. Bartmann Dep. 25:14-26:10; Bartmann Decl. ¶¶ 19; Ramirez Dep. 77:10-12; Ex. F.
According to Defendant's cited evidence, Bartmann and Freeman initially considered terminating both Plaintiff's and Faria's employment. Bartmann Decl. ¶ 19. However, Faria was part of a program that required a government-issued security clearance, a credential that Plaintiff concedes he lacks. Johnson Dep. 102:4-6; Bartmann Dep. 40:14-24. Faria's manager, Kent Nolan, sought special permission to retain Faria over Johnson. Winters Ex. G. Defendant cites evidence that Faria was retained over Johnson because of Faria's program's special needs and Faria's additional qualifications and security clearance. Bartmann Decl. ¶ 20; Bartmann Dep. 40:14-41:2. It is undisputed that Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment in November 2009.
After Plaintiff was terminated, certain procurement positions remained in Sunnyvale. Specifically, Defendant created several Program Material Manager ("PMM") positions, which act as a liaison between Procurement headquarters and the site-specific program they support, and buyers who purchased complex, non-commercial items. Bartmann Decl. ¶ 25; Banford Dep. 122:22-123:1. Unlike Plaintiff's last role, PMMs do not handle Rapid Procurement purchasing. Bartmann Decl. ¶ 25. The PMM positions were not available when Plaintiff's employment was terminated in November 2009. Banford Dep. 95:12-96:18.
On February 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint in Santa Clara Superior Court. ECF No. 1. The complaint alleged two causes of action: (1) race-based disparate treatment discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12940, et seq., and of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.; and (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Id. at 2 & Ex. A. On March 9, 2011, Defendant removed the action to federal court. See id. at 1. As discussed above, all of the pending motions are ripe for decision.
As an initial matter, both parties have objections relating to evidentiary matters. Plaintiff objected to all declarations offered in support of Defendant's motion on the basis that Defendant failed to disclose witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A). Pl.'s Evid. Objection 1. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Defendant refused to allow the deposition of Raymond Shaefer ("Shaefer"). Id. at 2. According to Plaintiff, Defendant did not disclose that Shaefer attended the meeting at which Plaintiff's termination was decided until the deposition of Bartmann on March 15, 2012, one day before the close of fact discovery. Id. Plaintiff requests that the Court bar all proof offered by Defendant in the instant motion and to grant an issue sanction on the issue of defendant's liability on all causes of action. Id. at 3. Finally, Plaintiff requests attorney's fees and costs in relation to Plaintiff's deposition of Banford and Rodriguez because these witnesses were not knowledgeable about the termination decision. Id.
Defendant counters that Plaintiff's complaints relating to discovery should have been raised in a discovery motion such as a motion to compel. Def.'s Evid. Objection at 2. Under Civil Local Rule 37-3, such a motion had to be filed no later than 7 days after the fact discovery cutoff, or no later than March 23, 2012. Id. Defendant argues that Plaintiff's raising these issues in a motion filed July 13, 2012, is too late. Id. Moreover, Defendant contends that Plaintiff's evidentiary objections should have been raised in Plaintiff's opposition as required by Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), which requires that "[a]ny evidentiary and procedural objections to the motion must be contained within the [opposition] brief or memorandum." Plainti...
To continue reading
Request your trial