University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION (LOCKHEED MARTIN MISSION SYSTEMS) EE-NM-0055
Docket / Court 1:01-cv-00815-WJ-KBM ( D.N.M. )
State/Territory New Mexico
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
The Phoenix district office and Albuquerque office of the EEOC brought this case against Lockheed Martin Corporation, d/b/a Lockheed Martin Mission Systems in July 2001 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. The complaint alleged that two female employees were subjected to ... read more >
The Phoenix district office and Albuquerque office of the EEOC brought this case against Lockheed Martin Corporation, d/b/a Lockheed Martin Mission Systems in July 2001 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. The complaint alleged that two female employees were subjected to verbal and physical sexual harassment by their immediate supervisor in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. More specifically, one of the complainants alleged that she was subjected to harassment based upon her gender, and as a consequence of the resultant hostile work environment, she was forced to resign. The other complainant entered the suit as an intervenor. After some dispute over the scope of discovery, the parties reached a settlement agreement in May 2002.

The agreement included non-discrimination and non-retaliation clauses. The agreement required Lockheed Martin Corporation to revise a Title VII policy and post the policy and required Lockheed Martin Corporation to provide training to all employees and require new employees or employees returning from leave to watch a video tape of the training. The agreement also called for the appointment of an employee to serve as an investigative officer. The EEOC maintained the ability to inspect the premises with reasonable notice to Lockheed Martin Corporation. The injunctive parts of the agreement had a two year term. If the EEOC found non-compliance, the settlement agreement called for court enforcement and the possible indefinite extension of the agreement. In addition, Lockheed Martin Corporation agreed to pay the two complainants damages of $140,000 and $60,000 respectively.

Kristen Sagar - 05/23/2008


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Content of Injunction
Discrimination Prohibition
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Monitor/Master
Monitoring
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Discrimination-area
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Discrimination-basis
Sex discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
Defendant(s) Lockheed Martin Corporation
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Plaintiff Description Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations EEOC
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Voluntary Dismissal
Order Duration 2002 - 2004
Case Closing Year 2002
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Written: Mar. 01, 2008
By: Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law)
Citation: 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach
By: Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
1:01-cv-00815-WJ-KBM (D.N.M.) 05/20/2002
EE-NM-0055-9000 PDF | Detail
General Documents
Complaint 07/13/2001
EE-NM-0055-0001 PDF | Detail
Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Defendant's Motion for Protective Order 01/11/2002 (D.N.M.)
EE-NM-0055-0002 PDF | Detail
Memorandum Opinion and Order [Regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses] 02/26/2002 (D.N.M.)
EE-NM-0055-0003 PDF | Detail
Order Denying [Defendant's] Motion to Compel 03/07/2002 (D.N.M.)
EE-NM-0055-0004 PDF | Detail
Order for Dismissal with Prejudice and Settlement Agreement 05/20/2002
EE-NM-0055-0005 PDF | Detail
Judges None on record
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers None on record
Defendant's Lawyers None on record
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -