Wigent v. Sci. Applications Int'l Corp.
| Decision Date | 08 May 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV. 13–00123 ACK–KSC.,CIV. 13–00123 ACK–KSC. |
| Citation | 19 F.Supp.3d 1012 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
| Parties | Shannon WIGENT, Plaintiff, v. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP.; John Does 1–10; Jane Does 1–10; and Doe Entities 1–10, Defendants. |
Roman F. Amaguin, Law Office of Roman Amaguin, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff.
Christian P. Gray, Louise K.Y. Ing, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On February 7, 2013, Plaintiff Shannon Wigent (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Science Applications International Corporation, now known as Leidos Holdings, Inc. (“Leidos” or “Defendant”), in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii. On March 13, 2013, Leidos removed the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441. (Notice of Removal at ¶ 4.) On March 20, 2013, Leidos filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc. No. 5.)
Plaintiff's Complaint pleads claims arising out of her termination of employment from Leidos. Plaintiff's first claim alleges that Leidos discriminated against her on the basis of her marital status in violation of Hawaii Revised Statute (“H.R.S.”) § 378–2(1). (Compl. at ¶¶ 31–36.) Plaintiff also brings retaliation claims, pursuant to H.R.S. 378–2(2). (Id. at ¶¶ 37–40, 42–46.)
Leidos filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion” or “Mot.”) along with a Concise Statement of Facts (“Def.'s CSF”) on February 18, 2014, seeking summary judgment as to all the claims asserted by Plaintiff. (Doc. Nos. 48–49.) On February 20, 2014, Leidos filed an Errata in order to correct Exhibit 1 of its Concise Statement of Facts. (Doc. No. 51.) In the original Exhibit 1, Leidos omitted the first half of Exhibit 1 and uploaded the second half twice. (Id. ) A complete copy of Exhibit 1 is attached to the Errata. (Id. ) On March 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed her Opposition to Defendant's Motion (“Opp.”) along with a Concise Statement of Facts (“Pl.'s CSF”). (Doc. Nos. 54–55.)1 Leidos filed a Reply (“Reply”) on April 7, 2014. (Doc. No. 57.) Also on April 7, 2014, Leidos filed objections and a response to Plaintiff's Concise Statement of Facts (“Def.'s Obj.'s”). (Doc. No. 58.)
The Court held a hearing regarding Defendant's Motion on April 21, 2014. (Doc. No. 62.)
Prior to September 27, 2013, Leidos was known as Science Applications International Corporation (“SAIC”). (Def.'s CSF at 2, ¶ 1; Pl.'s CSF at 1, ¶ 1.) The original SAIC was a scientific, engineering and technology applications company that served commercial and government customers. (Id. ) On September 27, 2013, SAIC changed its name to Leidos and spun off a separate new corporation, which kept the name SAIC. (Declaration of Jim Murray (“Murray Decl.”) ¶ 5.) The divisions which Plaintiff and her husband (collectively “the Wigents”) worked for remained under Leidos. (Id. )
In 2002, Leidos3 was awarded a federal government contract, the Maritime Synthetic Range (“MSR”), to be integrated on the island of Kauai, State of Hawaii. (Def.'s CSF at 3, ¶ 3; Pl.'s CSF at 1, ¶ 3.) In 2005, as a follow-up to the MSR program, the Pacific Region Integrated Test and Evaluation Capability (“PRITEC”) program was awarded to Leidos. (Def.'s CSF at 3, ¶ 4; Pl.'s CSF at 1, ¶ 4.) The PRITEC project lasted for several years and ended in 2011 when federal funding ceased. (Id. )
Leidos hired Plaintiff as a Systems Engineer in October 2001. (Def.'s CSF Ex. 1 (“Pl.'s Dep.”) 20:10–23.) Plaintiff began working at the company's Virginia office. (Id. ) In March 2002, Plaintiff was transferred to Kauai to help implement the MSR program. (Def.'s CSF at 3, ¶ 5; Pl.'s CSF at 1, ¶ 5.)
Leidos hired Plaintiff's husband, Mark Wigent (“Mark”), in February 2002, also as a Systems Engineer to help implement a separate program located on Kauai. (Pl.'s Dep. 27:8–16.) On March 16, 2002, Leidos relocated Plaintiff and her husband from Virginia to Kauai. (Def.'s CSF at 3, ¶ 7; Pl.'s CSF at 1, ¶ 7.)
Plaintiff concedes that her husband was initially hired to implement a separate program on Kauai. (Pl.'s Dep. 27:8–16.) Plaintiff asserts, however, that by November 2002, both her and her husband had started working on the MSR program. (Decl. of Pl. ¶ 8.) Leidos contends that the Wigents only began working on the MSR program together in late 2004. (Def.'s CSF at 4, ¶ 9.)
(Pl.'s Dep. Ex. 2.) Section 3.6.1 of SH–2 defines the terms “direct supervision” and “indirect supervision” as follows:
(Id. )
In late 2004, Plaintiff was working with the MSR program under division 1548, and Mark, under division 1805, became the Program Manager (“PM”) for the MSR program. (Def.'s CSF at 4, ¶ 9; Pl.'s CSF at 1, ¶ 9.) As the PM, Mark's responsibilities included managing the people assigned to the MSR, interfacing with the customer, ensuring customer satisfaction, and ensuring the program remained within budget and on schedule. (Id. )
Mark's supervisor, Steven Karwoski, in late 2004 raised the issue of whether the working relationship between Plaintiff and her husband violated SH–2 because Plaintiff was working on the MSR program while Mark was the Project Manager. (Id. ) As a result, in January 2005, an assessment of whether the Wigents' working relationship violated SH–2 was administered. (Def.'s CSF at 4, ¶ 11; Pl.'s CSF at 1, ¶ 11.) The assessment was conducted by Karwoski, Leidos' Human Resources Senior Vice President Marjorie Bailey, and Plaintiff's division supervisor Sam Mudrak. (Decl. of Murray ¶ 13.)
Ultimately, Leidos did not find a violation of SH–2 policy because the Wigents, Karwoski, Bailey, and Mudrak agreed upon a “MSR Organizational Structure” plan in which Plaintiff was to become a program consultant to the MSR program. (Pl.'s Dep. 65:5–66:14 & Ex. 5; Def.'s CSF Exs. 3–4.) Under the MSR Organizational Structure plan, Plaintiff would also not receive work assignments from her husband, and she would work in future program development, rather than current project execution. (Pl.'s Dep. Ex. 5.) Although the Wigents' supervisors and Leidos' Human Resources representative approved the plan, they stated that “[i]f the business circumstances change, we will need to revisit the issue.” (Def.'s CSF Exs. 3–4.)
From 2005 to 2008, Plaintiff and her husband continued to work on the same project but in separate divisions and under different management chains. (Def.'s CSF at 4, ¶ 14; Pl.'s CSF at 1, ¶ 14.) During this time, Plaintiff also worked on a project that her husband was not assigned to: the Unmanned Test Bed. (Pl.'s Dep. 39:24–40:9, 56:22–24.)
In 2007, Plaintiff began working on the PRITEC project where her husband was the PM. (Def.'s CSF at 5, ¶ 15; Pl.'s CSF at 1, ¶ 15.) On October 29, 2008, Leidos conducted an assessment of Plaintiff and her husband's working relationship. (Pl.'s Dep. Ex. 6; Pl.'s CSF Ex. M.) The assessment report was prepared by Mudrak, Plaintiff's division supervisor, and sent to Iva Heflin (Leidos' Human Resources Manager) and Reed Heddleston (Leidos' Operations Manager). (Id. )
In the October 2008 assessment report, Mudrak found that the Wigents' working relationship did not violate SH–2 because there was no direct or indirect supervisory relationship between Plaintiff and her husband, as defined by SH–2. (Id. ) Specifically, Mudrak found that there was no direct supervisory relationship because (1) Plaintiff was a consultant on PRITEC and did “not receive specific tasking or work under direct supervision from Mark”; (2) Plaintiff's role on PRITEC was, “by its very nature, independent of the program execution work being directed by Mark”; (3) Mark did “not direct or provide any inputs” to Plaintiff's assignments or reviews; and (4) on all non-PRITEC projects, Plaintiff had no “programmatic link” to the work her husband was doing. (Id. ) Mudrak further determined that there was no indirect supervisory relationship because “[w]hile Mark is the PM on PRITEC[,] he has no responsibilities that impact [Plaintiff] within Division[ ] 1548 ... All indirect matters regarding [Plaintiff] are dealt with by [Plaintiff's immediate supervisor] or me.” (Id. )
Accordingly, Mudrak concluded that there was “no direct supervision and no indirect supervision issues regarding Policy SH–2 that are applicable to the particular situation.” (Id. ) (emphasis in original.) Mudrak further stated that he “will make certain that position and role assignments in the future are carefully reviewed” in the context of SH–2, prior to any changes to the Wigents' work assignments. (Id. )
On November 30, 2009, Mudrak completed an additional assessment report on whether the Wigents' working relationship violated SH–2. (Def.'s CSF Ex. 5.) The results of the assessment report were sent to Heddleston and Angela Marquez, Leidos' Human Resources Manager. (Id. ) For virtually...
To continue reading
Request your trial