Motton v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
Decision Date | 02 March 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 2003-CA-0962.,2003-CA-0962. |
Citation | 900 So.2d 901 |
Parties | Agnes MOTTON v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, Jim Gibson, and Danny Bryant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Clement P. Donelon, Metairie, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellee.
Barbara Ryniker Evans, Anne E. Bendernagel, Evans & Associates, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant/Appellant.
(Court composed of Judge CHARLES R. JONES, Judge PATRICIA RIVET MURRAY, Judge TERRI F. LOVE).
ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING
This appeal arises from plaintiff, Agnes Motton's claim that her employer, Lockheed Martin, discriminated against her on the basis of sex and race. Although the jury found that Lockheed Martin discriminated against Agnes Motton on the basis of sex, it did not find that Lockheed Martin discriminated against her on the basis of race. The trial court denied Agnes Motton's request for re-instatement and front pay. It is from the jury's findings that both Lockheed Martin and Agnes Motton appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm.
In 1979, Agnes Motton ("Ms. Motton"), an African-American female, was hired by Lockheed Martin ("Lockheed") for the position of Mechanic Installation. During her employment with the Production department,1 she received two promotions. In 1995, Lockheed announced that four (4) Systems Control Mechanic A ("Control Mechanic") positions were available in its Facilities department. The positions were available to both current Lockheed employees and applicants outside of the company. A total of twenty-two (22) people applied for the four (4) available positions; of the 22 applicants, only two were female.
Danny Bryant ("Mr. Bryant") and Jim Gibson ("Mr. Gibson"), two Control Mechanic supervisors, evaluated the applicants' resumes and performed a technical interview. After reviewing all of the applicants, four applicants were selected for the position. The four applicants selected were Leo Williams, Dennis Caddell, Willie Henderson, and Eugene Holmes; all of the successful applicants were male, two of which, Leo Williams and Willie Henderson, were African-American.
The Control Mechanic position required that each applicant have experience and familiarity in several areas: (1) pneumatics; (2) mechanical; (3) electrical; (4) electronic; (5) hydraulics; (6) programmable logic controllers ("PLCs"); (7) computer hardware; (8) environmental; and five years of related experience in Control Mechanics. The experience required in the areas of pneumatic, mechanical, and environmental systems needed to relate specifically to temperature controllers, heating, ventilating, air conditioning systems and fan houses, boilers, chiller controls, or compressor controls.
The experience required in the area of hydraulics needed to relate to experience in machine tools. The areas of electrical and electronic experience required that the experience related specifically to systems controllers akin to automatic welding machines. Control Mechanic's were also required to have knowledge of PLCs and troubleshooting and repairing computers, peripherals and network systems. In addition to the related experience requirement, the educational requirement was a high school diploma, which each successful applicant, as well as Ms. Motton possessed.
On a disposition action form completed by Mr. Bryant and Mr. Gibson evaluating Ms. Motton, they reported the following:
Employee has associates degree in electronics, has no computer hardware, PLC, or pneumatics experience. Unable to answer most technical questions that were asked. Would require extensive training. Does not meet requirements for SCMA at this time.
Ms. Motton received a memorandum from Lockheed indicating that another candidate was selected for the position. After receiving the memorandum indicating Ms. Motton failed to receive the promotion, she scheduled a meeting with the Human Resources Director, Cheryl Alexander ("Ms. Alexander"). Ms. Motton expressed her disappointment to Ms. Alexander and Paul Mazant ("Mr. Mazant"), the union steward.2 Subsequently, Ms. Motton filed suit in state court under Louisiana's employment discrimination statutes, alleging Lockheed intentionally discriminated against her in denying her a promotion to the Control Mechanic's position based upon her sex and race. Ms. Motton also filed a defamation suit against her interviewers, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Bryant (collectively referred to as "Supervisors") for falsely and maliciously reporting that she did not correctly answer the technical questions they asked during her interview.
Lockheed removed the case to federal court and filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The federal court denied defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and remanded the matter to state court. After remand, Lockheed filed a second Motion for Summary Judgment regarding Ms. Motton's discrimination claim and Mr. Gibson and Mr. Bryant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment concerning Ms. Motton's defamation claims.
The trial court granted Mr. Gibson and Mr. Bryant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to the defamation claim which was affirmed in Motton v. Lockheed Martin, XXXX-XXXX (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/01/97), 703 So.2d 202 ("Motton I"). The trial court denied Lockheed's Motion for Summary Judgment regarding Ms. Motton's discrimination claim. Lockheed again attempted to remove the case to federal court, but the matter was remanded to state court. Lockheed filed a third and final Motion for Summary Judgment, which was denied. The defendant unsuccessfully sought supervisory writs.
After a six-day trial and the trial court's denial of defendant's Motion for Directed Verdict, the jury issued a judgment in Ms. Motton's favor on her sex discrimination claim, but found Ms. Motton had not been denied a promotion based on her race. The jury unanimously voted to award the plaintiff $130,000 in monetary damages, including $100,000 in general damages. Lockheed filed two post trial motions on the issues of liability and damages, a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict on Liability or New Trial; Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and Motion for A New Trial on Quantum, and Alternatively for Remittur. The trial court denied both motions.
Ms. Motton filed a Memorandum requesting re-instatement and front pay. The trial court also denied Ms. Motton's request for front pay and instatement to the Control Mechanic position. Ms. Motton's counsel filed a motion to have the Court assess attorney's fees and costs. The trial court awarded Ms. Motton's counsel a total of $115,198.75 in attorney's fees, including $113,580.00 for lead counsel, Clement P. Donelon, and $1,618.75 for Dale Williams. The trial court also awarded Ms. Motton costs in the amount of $6,783.96. It is from this judgment that Lockheed timely lodged this appeal asserting the following assignments of error:
Ms. Motton has filed a cross-appeal asserting the following:
The standard of review for factual findings in this case is that of manifest error. Initially, we must determine if the record supports a reasonable factual basis for the jury's findings. Then, we must determine whether the record establishes that the jury's finding is not clearly wrong. Beaumont v. Exxon Corp., 2002-2322, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/10/04), 868 So.2d 976, 980, writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.9/3/04), 882 So.2d 609. Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the fact finder's choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989), quoting Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330, 1333 (La.1978)
.
Lockheed asserts Ms. Motton failed to establish that she was not promoted to the Control Mechanic position on the basis of sex. Specifically, Lockheed argues Ms. Motton lacked the necessary qualifications for the position, she was not "clearly better qualified" than the four successful candidates, and sex was not the determinative factor in Ms. Motton not securing a Control Mechanic position.
The State of Louisiana's anti-discrimination in employment legislation is recorded in Title 23 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes. Pursuant to La. R.S. 23:332(A)3, it is unlawful for an employer to intentionally discriminate against an individual with respect to his compensation or his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of the individual's sex.4 Louisiana courts have looked to federal jurisprudence to interpret Louisiana discrimination laws. Bustamento v. Tucker, 607 So.2d 532, 538 n. 6 (La.1992); King v. Phelps Dunbar, L.L.P., 98-1805 (La.6/4/99), 743 So.2d 181, 187.
Recognizing that "`the question facing triers of fact in discrimination cases is both sensitive and difficult," and that "[t]here will seldom be `eyewitness' testimony to the employer's mental processes'", the Courts have employed the McDonnell Douglas framework that is based principally on circumstantial evidence. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 141, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000). Therefore, Motton's sex-discrimination claim is subject to the burden-shifting analysis in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McDaniel v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.
...... 218. Little , 37 F.3d at 1075. 219. Martin v . John W . Stone Oil Distrib ., Inc ., 819 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1987); Fed. R .Civ. P. ... and retaliation claims will be the same under the federal and state statutes); Motton v . Lockheed Martin Corp ., 2003-0962 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/2/05), 900 So. 2d 901, 909 ("Louisiana ......
-
Martin v. Winn-Dixie La., Inc.
......R. CIV. P.26 advisory committee's note (1993 amend.); see alsoChiasson v. Zapata Gulf Marine Corp. , 988 F.2d 513, 517 (5th Cir.1993) ("The federal rules promote broad discovery so that all ...Golden , 982 So.2d 234, 242 (La.Ct.App.2008) ; Motton v. Lockheed Martin Corp. , 900 So.2d 901, 909 (La.Ct.App.2005) ; cf.Duet v. Martin Marietta Corp. ......
-
Cassimere v. Fastorq, LLC.
......2004); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp . v . Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A fact is material if proof of ... Motton v . Lockheed Martin Corp ., 900 So.2d 901, 909 (La. App. 4 th Cir.), ......
-
Decorte v. Jordan
......7 (5th Cir.1994) (§ 1981); Motton v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 900 So.2d 901, 909 (La.Ct.App.), writ denied, ......
-
New Wine in an Old Chalice: The Ministerial Exception's Humble Roots
...ministerial exception precludes courts from adjudicating Copyright 2013, by BLAIR A. CRUNK. 1. See Motton v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 900 So. 2d 901, 906–07 (La. Ct. App. 4th 2005) (per curiam). 2. See id. 3. Id. at 907. 4. Id. (“Subsequently, Ms. Motton filed suit in state court under Louisi......