Deering v. Lockheed Martin Corporation

Background

Daniel’la Deering, an African-American female attorney, worked for Lockheed Martin from 2002 until the company terminated her on December 27, 2018. She held several legal positions, including Director and Associate General Counsel, Labor & Employment for the company’s Rotary and Mission Systems division. From 2014 through 2016, her supervisor rated her performance as “exceeds expectations.” In 2017, he gave her an “Achieved” expectations rating after a jury returned a $51.6 million verdict against Lockheed Martin in a case Deering managed. Her supervisor also received a lower-than-usual rating because of the verdict.

Deering believed the lower rating resulted from racial discrimination and that Lockheed Martin had discriminated against African-American attorneys in promotions to vice president. In May 2018, she appealed her performance review and attached communications that included both business information and attorney-client privileged legal communications. Her attorney later submitted those documents to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with a discrimination charge. Lockheed Martin’s disciplinary committee concluded that Deering had improperly disclosed confidential and privileged information and recommended termination. The company then fired her.

Deering brought claims for race discrimination and retaliation under federal and Minnesota law, along with other claims that the court had previously dismissed. The remaining defendant, Lockheed Martin, moved for summary judgment on the discrimination and retaliation claims. Deering moved for partial summary judgment on liability for retaliation.

Summary-Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion, but that party must identify specific evidence supporting a trial-worthy dispute.

Retaliation Claim

The court found no dispute that Deering engaged in protected conduct by filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint, suffered an adverse employment action when she was fired, and had established the required causal connection for purposes of the motion. Lockheed Martin offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination: Deering’s disclosure of confidential and attorney-client privileged documents, rather than the filing of the complaint itself.

The court agreed that Deering improperly gave the documents to her attorney, who provided them to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. But the court found a genuine factual dispute about whether Lockheed Martin effectively encouraged or “drew the foul” by knowing that Deering viewed the documents as important evidence, allowing her attorney to have access to them during settlement negotiations, and failing to caution against using them in a future complaint. The court held that a jury must decide whether those circumstances showed that the company’s stated reason was a pretext for retaliation. The court therefore did not resolve the retaliation claim on summary judgment.

Race-Discrimination Claim

Deering alleged that Lockheed Martin discriminated against her by giving her an unfairly low 2017 performance review, placing her in a labor-and-employment role that limited her promotion opportunities, and failing to promote her to vice president.

The court held that Deering failed to present evidence creating an inference of racial discrimination. It reasoned that the 2017 review was tied to the Braden verdict, that her white supervisor received similar criticism for the same verdict, and that Deering had not shown that comparable employees were treated differently after a significant adverse verdict. The court also found no evidence that her 2012 placement in the labor-and-employment role was motivated by racial bias and held that this theory was time-barred. As to the promotions, the court found that Deering had not shown she was more qualified than the selected candidates and noted Lockheed Martin’s stated concerns about the breadth of her experience and her judgment in light of the Balderrama and Braden verdicts.

The court further held that, even if Deering had established an initial case of discrimination, she had not shown that Lockheed Martin’s stated reasons were a pretext—meaning an untrue explanation masking unlawful discrimination. The court concluded that the race-discrimination claim failed as a matter of law and must be dismissed.

Disposition

In Daniel’la Deering v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, Judge David S. Doty ordered that Lockheed Martin’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part as set forth in the opinion, and Deering’s motion for partial summary judgment was denied. The opinion resolves the race-discrimination claim against Deering but leaves the retaliation claim for a jury.