Williams v. Raytheon Co., Civil Action No. 97-10925-RGS.
| Decision Date | 06 April 1999 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 97-10925-RGS. |
| Parties | Ralph WILLIAMS v. RAYTHEON COMPANY |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Ira H. Zaleznik, Lawson & Weitzen, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.
James F. Kavanaugh, Jr., Stephen S. Churchill, Conn, Kavanaugh, Rosenthal, Peisch & Ford, Ten Post Office Square, Boston, MA, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Ralph Williams contends that the defendant Raytheon Company terminated his employment because of his gender and his age, and in retaliation for his cooperation with a government investigation. Raytheon maintains that Williams was terminated for insubordination and that his state discrimination claims are in any case time-barred. Raytheon moves for summary judgment.1
The following facts are taken from the Complaint, Williams' deposition and affidavit, and Raytheon's Statement of Undisputed Facts.
Williams joined Raytheon in 1986 as manager of Employee Communications and Community Relations in the Missile System Division. In 1992, Williams was promoted to the position of Director of Internal Communications at Raytheon's corporate offices in Lexington, Massachusetts. Williams was responsible for writing, editing and producing Raytheon's corporate newspaper and other company publications. Throughout his tenure at Raytheon, Williams received outstanding reviews.
In 1993, Raytheon hired Elizabeth Allen as Vice President of Corporate Communications. Allen oversaw Raytheon's external and internal communications and was Williams' direct supervisor. Williams claims that Allen made comments to the effect that Raytheon had too many "old, white men"; she attempted to remove from company publications the proclamation that Raytheon was an equal opportunity employer; she expressed the belief that older employees made too much money; she told Williams that some of his decisions were based on testosterone; she made comments about particular men being handsome and young; she said that only "broads" knew how to work; she stated that she intended to hire only women; she requested that the company newspaper be redesigned to appeal to younger people; she indicated that she intended to replace a older woman with a "young, white boy;"2 and she forced Williams to give credit for some of his work to a female subordinate.3 Allen disputes all of these allegations.
During the summer of 1994, Raytheon News published a story about the bestowal of a government contract on Beech Aircraft, a Raytheon affiliate referred to as BASI. The story was inadvertently printed before the contract was actually awarded. Allen had approved the publication of the story. A competing vendor complained, and a government investigation ensued.
Williams was asked by Raytheon's Legal Department to prepare an affidavit explaining the circumstances surrounding the BASI incident. Williams Dep., at 113-114. He did so, but before submitting the affidavit to the Legal Department, Allen counseled him to redo it using hers as a model. Id., at 114-115. Allen's affidavit stated that Williams' secretary had failed to stamp "draft" on the story, causing the problem. Williams claims that this was untrue. Williams Aff. ¶ 14. Williams redrafted his own affidavit, but refused to place any blame on his secretary. Williams Aff. ¶ 15.
Williams states that he also told the government investigator the "truth." Allen was not present during the interview, and he never disclosed to her what he had told the investigator. Williams Dep., at 137-138, 147. After interviewing Williams, the investigator interviewed Allen and Joyce Melikian. Id., at 135-36. Williams was not present during Allen's interview, and he does not know what was said. Id. Williams claims that "[a]fter the investigator left Raytheon, Allen was furious with [him]." Williams Aff. ¶ 16.
Allen reminded Williams that she decided his bonuses and stock options and that he worked for her. Allen also told Williams that the investigator planned to return to interview Dennis Picard, Raytheon's CEO. Williams Dep., at 141, 143-48. The government eventually determined that Raytheon had done nothing improper. Allen Aff., Ex. 2, at ¶ 4.
Some two months after the BASI incident, Allen told her staff during a meeting that Williams Dep., at 149-150. After giving Williams a bonus check six months later, Allen told him that she was pleased with his performance "since the BASI incident." Id., at 149.
On June 8, 1995, Allen ordered Williams in writing to complete three tasks. Allen Aff. ¶ 6. Williams responded with a four-page memorandum that Allen regarded as hostile, sarcastic, and insubordinate. Id., at ¶ 7.4 Allen then ordered an audit of Williams' department focusing on purchases and other expenditures authorized by Williams. Williams Aff. ¶ 25.
On June 23, 1995, Williams met with Allen in her office. Allen states that during the meeting she felt physically threatened by Williams. Allen Aff. ¶ 8. Williams admits that he was "emotional," but insists that nothing menacing occurred. Williams Dep., at 183-184, 190; Williams Aff. ¶ 20. After the meeting, Allen ordered an audit of the software licenses for computer programs used in Williams department. Williams was later told by the security department that the audits had found no irregularities. Williams Aff. ¶ 26.
After the meeting, Williams complained to Gail Philip Anderson, Raytheon's Senior Vice President for Human Resources that Allen was biased against him because of his age and his gender. Williams Dep., at 191-192; Williams Aff. ¶ 21. Anderson directed Timothy Schultz, Raytheon's Manager for Corporate Equal Employment Opportunity Programs, to investigate Williams' complaint. Schultz concluded that Allen had not discriminated against Williams or anybody else.5 Schultz Aff. ¶ 4. Schultz also concluded that Williams had acted in an insubordinate manner towards Allen and recommended to Anderson that Williams be fired. Id. Anderson decided to terminate Williams after reviewing Schultz's findings with Allen. Anderson Aff. ¶ 3. Allen concurred in the decision. Allen Aff. ¶ 9.
On July 11, 1995, Williams was informed that he was being "permanently suspended" for insubordination. The following day, Williams went to the MCAD and completed an intake interview form and complaint.6 Williams Dep., at 213. In his deposition, Williams testified unequivocally that he was permanently terminated on July 11, 1995.
Q. Subsequently, there were discussions between counsel for you and counsel for Raytheon about the possibility of some severance agreement. Isn't that correct?
A. That happened later, yes.
Q. And was it your understanding that the reason that Raytheon didn't terminate you earlier was to see whether some agreement could be worked out between you and the company?
A. No.
Q. That's not your understanding.
A. I was told that at the end, but prior to that, I was not told that.
Q. Do you have any understanding as to why you weren't terminated earlier?
A. I was terminated on — permanently terminated — it was my impression I was permanently terminated on July 11th. That was my impression. In fact, it was confirmed in a phone call to Mr. Gasperini, who referred me to a man named Jay Minihan when I asked, "What does permanently suspended mean?"
"It means, "`You're fired.'"
Q. When did that phone call take place?
A. Shortly after I was permanently suspended.
Q. So sometime in July '98?
A. Yeah, I guess.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. Yes.
Q. You understood when you were put on permanent suspension you were in reality terminated.
A. Yes. I did not understand the term. I asked what the term meant. I asked Mr. Gasperini what the term meant. I never got an answer what the term meant. I've never heard anyone use the term "permanently suspended" prior to that or since then, except at this Raytheon thing.
Q. But Mr. Minihan told you on the phone call you just described that it meant, in effect, you were fired.
A. That's right.
Q. And that's the way you understood it after you talked to Mr. Minihan?
A. Yes.
Williams Dep., at 42-44. Williams states in his affidavit that his deposition testimony was "mistaken" and that Minihan (an employee in Raytheon's Human Resources Department), informed him that "indefinite suspension" meant termination, "probably in August." Williams Aff. ¶ 29.
Williams accepted a position with Systems Resources Corporation in September of 1995. Williams filed a Charge of Discrimination against Raytheon with the MCAD on February 2, 1996. Defendant's Ex. 6.
Summary judgment is appropriate when, based upon the pleadings, affidavits, and depositions, "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and [where] the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Gaskell v. Harvard Co-op. Society, 3 F.3d 495, 497 (1st. Cir.1993). A dispute of fact is only genuine if there is sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable jury to resolve the point in the nonmoving party's favor. NASCO, Inc. v. Public Storage, Inc., 29 F.3d 28, 32 (1st Cir.1994). "If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (citations omitted).
Count I — Age and Sex Discrimination Under G.L. c. 151B
To maintain an action under state law, Williams was required to file a claim with the MCAD within six months of the alleged discriminatory act. G.L. c. 151B, § 5; Andrews v. Arkwright Mut. Ins. Co., 423 Mass. 1021, 1021-1022, 673 N.E.2d 40 (1996). To satisfy the limitations period on his c. 151B claim, Williams' termination would have had to occur on or subsequent to August 5, 1995. Williams testified at his deposition that he understood that he was terminated on July 11, 1995.7 Although Williams...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tian v. Aspen Tech., Inc.
...requires only that the discharged employee be replaced by someone ‘with roughly equivalent qualifications.’ ” Williams v. Raytheon Co., 45 F.Supp.2d 124, 131 (D.Mass.1999) (quoting Smith v. Stratus Computer, Inc., 40 F.3d 11, 15 (1st Cir.1994) ), aff'd, 220 F.3d 16 (1st Cir.2000). See also ......
-
Young v. Brennan, Civil Action No. 16-12001-FDS
...facts for "a reasonable fact finder to infer that the employer's decision was motivated by [gender] animus." Williams v. Raytheon Co., 45 F. Supp. 2d 124, 129-30 (D. Mass. 1999) (quoting LeBlanc v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 6 F.3d 836, 843 (1st Cir. 1993) (quotation marks omitted)). Cf. Feder v. ......