Case 8:05-cv-00287-RWT Document 6-1 Filed 07/22/2005 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOUTHERN DIVISION

)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

10 S. Howard Street, 3rd Floor

)

Baltimore, MD 21201

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION

)

6801 Rockledge Dr.

)

Bethesda, MD 20817

)

)

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action No. AMENDED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“the ADEA”),

the Equal Pay Act of 1963(“the EPA”), Section 15(a)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act

(“the FLSA”), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(“Title VII”), and Title I of the Civil

Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of retaliation

and to provide relief to Denise Lawson Isaac. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (“the EEOC” or “the Commission”) alleges that Defendant Lockheed Martin

Corporation, through its now-defunct subsidiary Lockheed Martin Global

Telecommunications, Inc., (“LMGT”), retaliated against Ms. Isaac by conditioning her

receipt of severance benefits upon her withdrawal of a charge filed with the

Commission.

This is also an action under the ADEA to correct unlawful employment practices

on the basis of age and to provide appropriate relief to Jeffrey Kurland and to

Case 8:05-cv-00287-RWT Document 6-1 Filed 07/22/2005 Page 2 of 10
individuals similarly situated to him. The Commission alleges that Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation, through its now-defunct subsidiary LMGT, terminated Mr. Kurland and other employees in the LMGT COMSAT Mobile Communications Division because of their age in approximately October 2000.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to: a. Section 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the "FLSA"), as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 217, to enforce the requirements of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (the “EPA”), codified as Section 15 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §215; b. Sections 704(a), 706(f)(1) and (3), and 707(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e-3(a), 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and 2000e-6(a) ("Title VII"); and c. Sections 4(d) and 7(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sections 623(d) and 626(b) (the “ADEA”), which incorporates by reference Sections 16(c) and 17 of the FLSA, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sections 216(c) and 217. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission" or “EEOC”), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of, inter alia, the EPA, Title VII, and the ADEA. 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation has
2

Case 8:05-cv-00287-RWT Document 6-1 Filed 07/22/2005 Page 3 of 10
continuously been a Delaware corporation, doing business in the State of Maryland and the City of Bethesda, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
6. At all relevant times, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 11(b), (g) and (h) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 630 (b), (g) and (h).
7. At all relevant times, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation has acted directly or indirectly as an employer in relation to employees and has continuously been an employer within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
8. At all relevant times, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation has continuously employed employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of Sections 3(b), (i) and (j) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), (i) and (j) or has continuously been an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of Sections 3(r) and (s) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(r) and (s), in that said enterprise has continuously been an enterprise whose annual gross volume of sales made or business done is not less than $500,000.
STATEMENT OF TITLE VII RETALIATION CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION
9. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Denise Lawson Isaac filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by
3

Case 8:05-cv-00287-RWT Document 6-1 Filed 07/22/2005 Page 4 of 10
Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation’s LMGT subsidiary. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
10. Since at least August 1, 2000, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation, through its LMGT subsidiary, has engaged in continuing unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). These practices include retaliating against Denise Lawson Isaac by denying her severance benefits because she filed a charge with the EEOC.
11. The effect of the continuing practices complained of in paragraph 10, above, has been to deprive Ms. Isaac of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her employee status because of her right to engage in protected activity.
12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 10, above, were intentional.
13. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 10, above, were done with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Isaac.
STATEMENT OF FLSA (EPA) RETALIATION CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION
14. Since at least August 3, 2000, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation, through its LMGT subsidiary, has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 15(a)(3) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §215(a)(3). The practices include retaliating against Denise Lawson Isaac, by denying her severance benefits because she filed a charge with the EEOC.
4

Case 8:05-cv-00287-RWT Document 6-1 Filed 07/22/2005 Page 5 of 10
15. As a result of the practices complained in paragraph 14 above, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation has unlawfully withheld payment of severance benefits to Denise Lawson Isaac.
16. The unlawful employment practices complained above in paragraph 14 were willful.
STATEMENT OF ADEA RETALIATION CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION
17. Since at least August 3, 2000, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation, through its LMGT subsidiary, has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 4(d) of the ADEA, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 623(d). The practices include retaliating against Denise Lawson Isaac by denying her severance benefits because she filed a charge with the EEOC.
18. The effect of the continuing practices complained of in paragraph 17, above, has been to deprive Ms. Isaac of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her employee status because of her right to engage in protected activity.
19. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 17, above, were willful within the meaning of Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION FOR DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF THE ADEA
20. Since at least August 1, 2000, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation, through the COMSAT Mobile Communications Division of its LMGT subsidiary, has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of section 4(a) of the ADEA, 29
5

Case 8:05-cv-00287-RWT Document 6-1 Filed 07/22/2005 Page 6 of 10
U.S.C. § 623 (a)(1). The practices include discharging Jeffrey Kurland, then age 53, and similarly situated individuals in the COMSAT Mobile Communications Division, identified in Appendix A, because of age.
21. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 20 above has been to deprive Jeffrey Kurland and similarly situated individuals formerly employed in the COMSAT Mobile Communications Division of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of age.
22. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 20 above were willful.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in retaliation and any other employment practice which discriminates against an employee for exercising the right to file a charge with the EEOC; B. Order Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which protect from retaliation those employees who wish to file charges with the EEOC or participate in an EEOC investigation or proceeding, and which eradicate the effects of past and present unlawful employment practices; C. Order Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation to make whole Denise
6

Case 8:05-cv-00287-RWT Document 6-1 Filed 07/22/2005 Page 7 of 10
Lawson Isaac by providing all withheld severance pay, in amounts to be determined at trial, as amounts owing as back wages with prejudgment interest, and an equal amount in liquidated damages;
D. Order Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation to make whole Denise Lawson Isaac by providing compensation for pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, anxiety, depression, embarrassment, degradation, and humiliation;
E. Order Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation to pay to Denise Lawson Isaac punitive damages for its callous indifference to her federally protected right to be free from retaliation;
F. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of age against individuals 40 years of age and older;
G. Order Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for individuals 40 years of age and older, and which eradicate the effects of past and present unlawful employment practices;
H. Grant a judgment requiring Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation to pay appropriate back wages in an amount to be determined at trial, an equal sum as liquidated damages, and prejudgment interest to the persons identified in Attachment A;
I. Order Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation to make whole all individuals identified in Attachment A
7

Case 8:05-cv-00287-RWT Document 6-1 Filed 07/22/2005 Page 8 of 10
by providing the appropriate relief necessary to eradicate the effects of the unlawful terminations complained of above, including but not limited to payment of damages for job-search expenses; payment of damages for emotional distress, inconvenience, and humiliation; and rightful place reinstatement and/or front pay; and
J. Grant such further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest;
K. Award the Commission its costs of this action. Respectfully submitted,
ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
_________/s/____________ GERALD S. KIEL Regional Attorney (signed by Maria Morocco with permission of Gerald Kiel)
______/s/_________________ DEBRA M. LAWRENCE Supervisory Trial Attorney (signed by Maria Morocco with permission of Debra Lawrence)
8

Case 8:05-cv-00287-RWT Document 6-1 Filed 07/22/2005 Page 9 of 10 __________/s/_____________ MARIA LUISA MOROCCO Trial Attorney Bar No. 24357 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Baltimore District Office 10 S. Howard Street 3rd Floor Baltimore, MD 21201 phone: (410) 962-4260 fax: (410) 962-4270
9

Case 8:05-cv-00287-RWT Document 6-1 Filed 07/22/2005 Page 10 of 10

Baxter, Robert C. Kurland, Jeffrey R. Molzahn, Herman J. Nachman, Bruce Nagler, Gerald M. Neumann, Klaus Rentfro, Wayne E. Slack, Edward R.

APPENDIX A

 
 Case 8:05-cv-00287-RWT Document 1 Filed 01/31/2005 Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOUTHERN DIVISION

)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

10 S. Howard Street, 3rd Floor

)

Baltimore, MD 21201

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION

)

6801 Rockledge Dr.

)

Bethesda, MD 20817

)

)

and

)

)

TELENOR SATELLITE SERVICES, INC. )

1101 Wooton Parkway

)

Rockville, MD 20852

)

)

Defendants.

)

Civil Action No. COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“the ADEA”),

the Equal Pay Act of 1963(“the EPA”), Section 15(a)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act

(“the FLSA”), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(“Title VII”), and Title I of the Civil

Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of retaliation

and to provide relief to Denise Lawson Isaac. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (“the EEOC” or “the Commission”) alleges that Defendant Lockheed Martin

Corporation, through its now-defunct subsidiary Lockheed Martin Global

Telecommunications, Inc., (“LMGT”) retaliated against Ms. Isaac by conditioning her

receipt of severance benefits upon her withdrawal of a charge filed with the

Case 8:05-cv-00287-RWT Document 1 Filed 01/31/2005 Page 2 of 11
Commission. This is also an action under the ADEA to correct unlawful employment practices
on the basis of age and to provide appropriate relief to Jeffrey Kurland and to individuals similarly situated to him. The Commission alleges that Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation, through its now-defunct subsidiary LMGT, terminated Mr. Kurland and other employees in the LMGT COMSAT Mobile Communications Division because of their age in approximately October 2000. In January 2002, Defendant Telenor Satellite Services, Inc., acquired Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation’s LMGT COMSAT Mobile Communications Division.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to: a. Section 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the "FLSA"), as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 217, to enforce the requirements of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (the “EPA”), codified as Section 15 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §215; b. Sections 704(a), 706(f)(1) and (3), and 707(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e-3(a), 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and 2000e-6(a) ("Title VII"); and c. Sections 4(d) and 7(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sections 623(d) and 626(b) (the “ADEA”), which incorporates by reference Sections 16(c) and 17 of the FLSA, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sections 216(c) and 217. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division.
2

Case 8:05-cv-00287-RWT Document 1 Filed 01/31/2005 Page 3 of 11
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission" or “EEOC”), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of, inter alia, the EPA, Title VII, and the ADEA. 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation has continuously been a Delaware corporation, doing business in the State of Maryland and the City of Bethesda, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h). 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 11(b), (g) and (h) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 630 (b), (g) and (h). 7. At all relevant times, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation has acted directly or indirectly as an employer in relation to employees and has continuously been an employer within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). 8. At all relevant times, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation has continuously employed employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of Sections 3(b), (i) and (j) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), (i) and (j) or has continuously been an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of Sections 3(r) and (s) of the
3

Case 8:05-cv-00287-RWT Document 1 Filed 01/31/2005 Page 4 of 11
FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(r) and (s), in that said enterprise has continuously been an enterprise whose annual gross volume of sales made or business done is not less than $500,000.
9. At all relevant times, Defendant Telenor Satellite Services, Inc., has continuously been a Delaware corporation, doing business in the State of Maryland and the City of Rockville, and has continuously had at least 20 employees.
10. At all relevant times, Defendant Telenor Satellite Services, Inc., has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 11(b), (g) and (h) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 630 (b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF TITLE VII RETALIATION CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION
11. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Denise Lawson Isaac filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation’s LMGT subsidiary. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
12. Since at least August 1, 2000, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation, through its LMGT subsidiary, has engaged in continuing unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). These practices include retaliating against Denise Lawson Isaac by denying her severance benefits because she filed a charge with the EEOC.
13. The effect of the continuing practices complained of in paragraph 12, above, has been to deprive Ms. Isaac of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her employee status because of her right to engage in protected
4

Case 8:05-cv-00287-RWT Document 1 Filed 01/31/2005 Page 5 of 11
activity. 14. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 12, above,
were intentional. 15. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 12 above
were done with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Isaac.
STATEMENT OF FLSA (EPA) RETALIATION CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION
16. Since at least August 3, 2000, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation, through its LMGT subsidiary, has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 15(a)(3) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §215(a)(3). The practices include retaliating against Denise Lawson Isaac, by denying her severance benefits because she filed a charge with the EEOC.
17. As a result of the practices complained in paragraph 16 above, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation has unlawfully withheld payment of severance benefits to Denise Lawson Isaac.
18. The unlawful employment practices complained above in paragraph 16 were willful. STATEMENT OF ADEA RETALIATION CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT LOCKHEED
MARTIN CORPORATION 19. Since at least August 3, 2000, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation, through its LMGT subsidiary, has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 4(d) of the ADEA, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 623(d). The practices include
5

Case 8:05-cv-00287-RWT Document 1 Filed 01/31/2005 Page 6 of 11
retaliating against Denise Lawson Isaac by denying her severance benefits because she filed a charge with the EEOC.
20. The effect of the continuing practices complained of in paragraph 19, above, has been to deprive Ms. Isaac of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her employee status because of her right to engage in protected activity.
21. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 19, above, were willful within the meaning of Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION AND SUCCESSOR DEFENDANT TELENOR SATELLITE
SERVICES, INC., FOR DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF THE ADEA 22. Since at least August 1, 2000, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation, through the COMSAT Mobile Communications Division of its LMGT subsidiary, has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of section 4(a) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 623 (a)(1). The practices include discharging Jeffrey Kurland, then age 53, and similarly situated individuals in the COMSAT Mobile Communications Division, identified in Appendix A, because of age. 23. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 22 above has been to deprive Jeffrey Kurland and similarly situated individuals formerly employed in the COMSAT Mobile Communications Division of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of age. 24. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 22 above were willful.
6

Case 8:05-cv-00287-RWT Document 1 Filed 01/31/2005 Page 7 of 11
25. In approximately January 2002, Defendant Telenor Satellite Services, Inc., purchased the COMSAT Mobile Communications Division of Lockheed Martin Corporation’s LMGT subsidiary.
26. Since approximately January 2002, Defendant Telenor Satellite Services, Inc., has continued the operations of the COMSAT Mobile Communications Division of Lockheed Martin Corporation’s LMGT subsidiary using substantially the same work force, and producing substantially the same products, as its predecessor.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in retaliation and any other employment practice which discriminates against an employee for exercising the right to file a charge with the EEOC; B. Order Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which protect from retaliation those employees who wish to file charges with the EEOC or participate in an EEOC investigation or proceeding, and which eradicate the effects of past and present unlawful employment practices; C. Order Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation to make whole Denise Lawson Isaac by providing all withheld severance pay, in amounts to be determined at trial, as amounts owing as back wages with prejudgment interest, and an equal amount in liquidated damages;
7

Case 8:05-cv-00287-RWT Document 1 Filed 01/31/2005 Page 8 of 11
D. Order Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation to make whole Denise Lawson Isaac by providing compensation for pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, anxiety, depression, embarrassment, degradation, and humiliation;
E. Order Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation to pay to Denise Lawson Isaac punitive damages for its callous indifference to her federally protected right to be free from retaliation;
F. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of age against individuals 40 years of age and older;
G. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for individuals 40 years of age and older, and which eradicate the effects of past and present unlawful employment practices;
H. Grant a judgment requiring Defendants to pay appropriate back wages in an amount to be determined at trial, an equal sum as liquidated damages, and prejudgment interest to the persons identified in Attachment A;
I. Order Defendants to make whole all individuals identified in Attachment A by providing the appropriate relief necessary to eradicate the effects of the unlawful terminations complained of above, including but not limited to payment of damages for job-search expenses; payment of damages for emotional distress, inconvenience, and humiliation; and rightful place reinstatement and/or front pay;
8

Case 8:05-cv-00287-RWT Document 1 Filed 01/31/2005 Page 9 of 11
J. Grant such further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest;
K. Award the Commission its costs of this action. Respectfully submitted,
ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
_________/s/____________ GERALD S. KIEL Regional Attorney (signed by Maria Morocco with permission of Gerald Kiel)
______/s/_________________ DEBRA M. LAWRENCE Supervisory Trial Attorney (signed by Maria Morocco with permission of Debra Lawrence)
______/s/__________________ MARIA SALACUSE Trial Attorney (signed by Maria Morocco with permission of Maria Salacuse)
9

Case 8:05-cv-00287-RWT Document 1 Filed 01/31/2005 Page 10 of 11 __________/s/_____________ MARIA LUISA MOROCCO Trial Attorney Bar No. 24357 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Baltimore District Office 10 S. Howard Street 3rd Floor Baltimore, MD 21201 phone: (410) 962-4260 fax: (410) 962-4270
10

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Plaintiff
v.
LOCKHEED MARTIN GLOBAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.
Defendant

* * * * * * * Civil Case No. RWT 05-287 * * * * * *

MEMORANDUM OPINION On January 31, 2005, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“the EEOC”) filed suit against Lockheed Martin Global Telecommunications, Inc. (“LMGT”) on behalf of Jeffrey Kurland (“Kurland”) and other former LMGT employees, alleging a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).1 On February 23, 2007, LMGT filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds of laches and a failure to conciliate [Paper No. 118].2 The Court held a hearing on this motion on June 18, 2007, and now rules.
I. On or about August 3, 2000, Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Lockheed”) acquired COMSAT Corporation (“COMSAT”) by merging it into its subsidiary, LMGT. Jeffrey Kurland and the other claimants were employed in the COMSAT Mobile Communications (“CMC”) business

1 In its Complaint, the EEOC also alleged that LMGT improperly retaliated against another employee, Denise Lawson Isaac, for filing an EEOC charge. On August 9, 2006, this Court granted summary judgment as to liability in favor of the EEOC on this claim. See Paper Nos. 48, 49.
2 LMGT, with the Court’s permission, filed a second motion for summary judgment on the merits, which is still pending.

unit.3 Following the merger, Lockheed decided to sell CMC and instituted a series of Reductions in Force (“RIF”) to prepare for the sale of CMC. Jeffrey Kurland and the other claimants were included in the RIF, and their employment was terminated in October 2000.
On October 31, 2000, Jeffrey Kurland filed an EEO charge, alleging age discrimination in his termination.4 The EEOC sent notice of the charge to LMGT on November 2, 2000. An EEOC investigator, Christie Boyd (“Boyd’), reviewed numerous personnel documents, interviewed Kurland and other persons in LMGT’s employ, and completed an on-site investigation at the LMGT premises. Finally, on April 24, 2002, Boyd sent a Letter of Determination to LMGT, finding reasonable cause to believe that Kurland “and a class of older workers (age 40 and older) were selected for position abolishment and permanent layoff because of their age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.” LMGT’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”), App. 3.
On May 16, 2002, Boyd sent a letter to LMGT’s counsel, requesting back pay and liquidated damages for Kurland, reinstatement of his employment, and various equitable remedies. The letter did not mention by name any of the other claimants involved in the current suit. After some correspondence relating to back pay and damages, LMGT’s counsel sent a letter to the EEOC on June 27, 2002, asserting that there was no reasonable cause for finding LMGT violated the ADEA, and stating that LMGT would not enter into a Conciliation Agreement. In a letter dated July 26, 2002, the EEOC responded that conciliation efforts had failed, and informed LMGT that the case
3 The other claimants include Robert C. Baxter, Herman J. Molzahn, Bruce Nachman, Gerald M. Nagler, Klaus Neumann, Wayne E. Rentfro, and Edward R. Slack.
4 In his initial charge, Kurland also claimed that he was not promoted because of his age. The EEOC, however, found this claim was without merit, and it is not before the Court.
-2-

would be referred to the EEOC’s legal unit to determine whether a civil action should be filed in federal district court.
On September 30, 2002, the Baltimore Regional Attorney submitted a litigation recommendation to the Office of General Counsel in Washington, D.C. After evaluating possible policy considerations, the Office of General Counsel submitted its litigation recommendation to the full Commission in early April 2003. The Commission, however, did not vote on the litigation recommendation, electing instead to place the case in “agenda status.”5
As a result of the Commission’s decision, the Assistant General Counsel asked the Baltimore Regional Attorney on May 30, 2003, to reassess the file, and conduct a further inquiry into the case. Nearly a year later, the Baltimore Regional Attorney submitted additional information to the Office of General Counsel.6 The General Counsel ultimately submitted his litigation recommendation to the Commission on November 29, 2004. Finally, on December 9, 2004, the Commission voted to approve the litigation. The Baltimore unit finally filed the complaint in this case on January 31, 2005, over four years after the RIF.
At no point during this process did the EEOC contact LMGT to update it on the status of the case. By the same token, LMGT does not claim that it contacted the EEOC to inquire as to the case’s status.
5 It appears that the designation “agenda status” delays a vote by the Commission on the litigation recommendation. The Commission apparently took this action when the Office of General Counsel could not answer certain questions posed regarding the evidence and legal theories of the case.
6 The EEOC asserts that this delay was, in part, caused by a heavy workload; active litigation, with court-established deadlines, were given priority
-3-

II. In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Francis v. Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc., 452 F.3d 299, 302 (4th Cir. 2006). Summary judgment is only proper “‘if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). “A material fact is one that ‘might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.’” Spriggs v. Diamond Auto Glass, 242 F.3d 179, 183 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). To avoid summary judgment, the non-moving party “may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256.
III. Laches is an equitable doctrine, which requires a party to demonstrate that it was prejudiced by the opposing party’s lack of diligence. See EEOC v. Navy Federal Credit Union, 424 F.3d 397, 409 (4th Cir. 2005).7 While this Court concludes that the EEOC exhibited a lack of diligence in bringing this action, LMGT has failed to demonstrate that it was significantly prejudiced by the EEOC’s delay; thus, laches is not a bar to recovery.
7 At the outset, the EEOC argues that the equitable defense of laches should not apply to the EEOC, an agency acting on behalf of the sovereign. The Court does not find this argument persuasive. In Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Cal. v. EEOC, 432 U.S. 355 (1977), the Supreme Court noted that in cases of an inordinate delay by the EEOC, federal courts have the same discretionary power “to locate a just result in light of the circumstances peculiar to the case” as in other cases. Id. at 373 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
-4-

A. Lack of Diligence In a laches determination, a lack of diligence exists where the plaintiff delayed inexcusably
or unreasonably in filing suit. See White v. Daniel, 909 F.2d 99, 102 (4th Cir. 1990). No particular period of delay by the EEOC is per se invalid; instead “the reasonableness of the EEOC’s delay” depends “on the EEOC’s reason for the delay.” EEOC v. Autozone, Inc., 258 F. Supp.2d 822, 827 (W.D. Tenn. 2003). See also EEOC v. Peterson, Howell & Heather, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 1213, 1222 (D.Md. 1989). If the time period is lengthy, the Court should scrutinize carefully any justifications proffered by the EEOC. See EEOC v. Jacksonville Shipyards, 690 F. Supp. 995 (M.D. Fla. 1988).
To aid in the analysis, the Court will divide the time between Kurland’s filing of a charge with the EEOC and the filing of the instant case into three distinct periods: (1) The Investigation; (2) The Conciliation Efforts; and (3) The EEOC’s Deliberations to File Suit. 1. The Investigation
The initial investigation of this case—between Jeffrey Kurland’s filing of charges on October 31, 2000, and LMGT’s receipt of a Letter of Determination on or about April 24, 2002 —lasted approximately 18 months. Christie Boyd, the EEOC investigator, maintained a case log during this period, which reveals regular activity in the investigation, with substantial steps taken about once a month. Certainly, delay will not be excused merely because the EEOC activity is continuous, if the nature and quality of that activity do not justify the delay. See Peterson, 702 F. Supp. at 1221. Boyd’s investigation, however, required her to review voluminous documents submitted by LMGT, interview Kurland and two other employees fired during the RIF, coordinate interviews with busy managers in LMGT’s employ, as well as make an on-site visit to LMGT’s premises. Additionally, Boyd was forced to seek a subpoena for 29 personnel files that LMGT did
-5-

not willingly turn over, which caused a two month delay. Boyd also provided LMGT extensions for responding to requests for information, totaling three and one half months.
The EEOC’s action was not only continuous, but also was productive toward the ultimate finding of discrimination. The delays that did exist, were, at least in part, due to LMGT’s own actions.8 Moreover, an investigation lasting one and one half years is relatively short compared to cases in which courts found an investigation to be unreasonably long. See EEOC v. Dresser Indust., Inc., 668 F.2d 1199 (11th Cir. 1982) (holding 33 months between charge and completion of investigation, with a total of 5 years and eight months between the charge and complaint, was an inexcusable delay); see also EEOC v. Liberty Loan Corporation, 584 F.2d 853 (8th Cir. 1978) (finding two years and two months before determination was part of an inexcusable delay, particularly considering plaintiff offered no reason for the delay, and the investigation did not begin until 19 months after the filing of the charge).
Thus, the Court finds nothing to suggest that the EEOC did not diligently pursue the charge during the investigatory period. 2. The Conciliation Efforts
LMGT does not contend that the period of time devoted to conciliation efforts, standing alone, was unreasonable. As noted above, on April 24, 2002, the EEOC sent a Letter of Determination to LMGT. After some discussions regarding back pay, the EEOC sent a letter to LMGT’s counsel on July 26, 2002, indicating that conciliation efforts had failed. During such a short period of time, it is self-evident that any delay was reasonable.
8 Indeed, at the hearing on their motion, LMGT conceded that the investigatory period, in and of itself, did not involve an unreasonable delay.
-6-

3. The EEOC’s Deliberations to File Suit LMGT’s laches argument necessarily centers on the period between the end of conciliation,
and when the EEOC finally filed suit—a span of 30 months. Notwithstanding the EEOC’s proffered reasons for the delay, the Court finds that the delay was unreasonable.
On or before September 30, 2002, the Baltimore Regional Attorney submitted a request for litigation to the Office of General Counsel. It was not until April 1, 2003—six months later—that the General Counsel submitted its litigation recommendation to the Commission. The EEOC does not really explain the cause for this delay; it only provides more details about the events that transpired during that time period. For instance, it took until January 24, 2003—almost four months—for the Office of General Counsel to draft a memorandum on whether to litigate, and then another six weeks to seek “input on whether any policy issues were raised by the proposed litigation.” EEOC’s Opposition (“Opp.”), at 16.
The EEOC’s delay became truly inexcusable after the Commission put the case in agenda status. On May 30, 2003, the Baltimore Regional Attorney was directed to conduct a further inquiry into the investigation, which was not completed until May 18, 2004. The EEOC asserts that this period “consisted generally of extensive conferring between the Assistant General Counsel and the Baltimore Trial Attorney, extensive conferring between the Trial Attorney and Kurland, the Trial Attorney’s contacting of several witnesses, and a reassessment of the entire file in view of the additional inquiries made.” Opp. at 17. In the Court’s view, “extensive conferring” and “a reassessment,” over the course of almost a year, do not qualify as concrete actions taken by the EEOC to move the case forward. Moreover, even after the delay in Baltimore, the Office of General Counsel did not authorize the filing of a lawsuit for another 7 months.
-7-

The Court is sympathetic to the EEOC, an overburdened agency, charged with the daunting task of ensuring that only meritorious suits are filed. Nonetheless, the EEOC does not have unfettered discretion to carry on lengthy investigations and deliberations without good reason. In the instant case, the Court cannot find that the EEOC’s proffered reasons for the delay make that delay reasonable or excusable. Moreover, each month the EEOC did not apprise LMGT of its continuing interest in the case likely led LMGT to believe, with increasing certainty, that it had avoided litigation. Compare EEOC v. Jacksonville Shipyards, 690 F. Supp. 995, 1000 (M.D. Fla. 1988) (holding delay of six years and 10 months from initial charge was not unreasonable because the “EEOC has exhibited a continuing interest in the pursuit of the discrimination charges and this interest was repeatedly communicated to defendant”) (emphasis added).
The Court, therefore, concludes that the delay in this case was a result of a lack of diligence. B. Prejudice
Unfortunately for LMGT, the analysis does not stop there. In order to secure equitable relief, a defendant must also prove that it was prejudiced by the delay. See Navy Federal Credit Union, 424 F.3d at 409. Prejudice is demonstrated by a disadvantage in asserting or establishing a claimed right, or some other harm caused by detrimental reliance on the plaintiff's conduct. See White v. Daniel, 909 F.2d 99, 102 (4th Cir. 1990). “‘Classic elements’ of undue prejudice include unavailability of witnesses, changed personnel, and the loss of pertinent records.” Dresser Industries, Inc., 668 F.2d at 1203). A defendant, however, has to prove that any lost evidence would ultimately support its position. See Tobacco Workers Int’l Union, Local 317 v. Lorillard Corp., 448 F.2d 949, 958 (4th Cir. 1971). Ultimately, the Court must determine “whether the defendant has been crippled in its ability to succeed on the merits at trial.” EEOC v. Peterson, Howell & Heather, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 1213, 1222 (D. Md. 1989) (“Peterson”).
-8-

1. Key Witnesses are No Longer Employed by LMGT LMGT argues that it has suffered substantial prejudice because key witness are no longer
in its employ. Specifically, because Lockheed sold the CMC Division to Telenor, at least two witnesses—Ed Bender and Jeff Irwin—have relocated out of state, and cannot be compelled to come to Maryland to testify.
Certainly, the mere fact that LMGT no longer employs certain witnesses does not, alone, establish prejudice. See EEOC v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 735 F.2d 69, 84 (3rd Cir. 1984). LMGT must demonstrate that the witnesses are unavailable, and that their unavailability is a result of the EEOC’s unreasonable delay. See id.; see also Navy Federal Credit Union, 424 F.3d at 409.
Even if the EEOC had moved greater dispatch, it is not likely that these witnesses would have still been in LMGT’s employ by the time the EEOC brought suit; the sale of CMC was complete by January 2002. Moreover, LMGT has been able to depose nearly all the relevant witnesses, including supervisors, signatories of the evaluation forms used to determine who would be laid off, and even Ed Bender, one of the out-of-state witnesses, who recommended that three claimants be included in the RIF.9 Not only were all the depositions videotaped, but nearly all of LMGT’s former managers live in the area, and thus, can be required to appear for trial.10 2. Keith Regan, a Key Witness, Died Unexpectedly
LMGT next alleges that it has sustained substantial prejudice because Keith Regan (“Regan”), who died suddenly in April, 2005, was a key witness for the defense, in that he
9 Jeff Irvin, Kurland’s co-worker, has not been deposed, but LMGT has done little to suggest why Irvin’s testimony would be crucial in light of the numerous other employees who have been deposed.
10 Ed Bender is the exception, but as noted above, the defendant has the benefit of his videotaped deposition.
-9-

recommended who should be laid off in the RIF.11 Specifically, LMGT alleges that Regan would
have been a critical witness for at least four of the claimants, including Jeffery Kurland, Klaus
Neumann, Edward Slack and Robert Cedric Baxter.
Nevertheless, the prejudice, if any, due to Regan’s death appears minimal. LMGT claims
it needs Regan’s testimony to prove that Neumann and Slack volunteered to be part of the RIF, show
that Kurland was not a respected employee, and confirm that Baxter’s position was “not critical to the business.”12 But LMGT itself cites numerous depositions which provide support for its
arguments, in place of the testimony it believes Regan would have offered. LMGT has a deposition
from Regan’s supervisor, Kathryn Holman, who ultimately made all the RIF decisions based on
Regan’s recommendations. LMGT also has depositions from Neumann and Slack, and will have the opportunity to engage in a vigorous cross-examination of the claimants at trial.13 Considering
the numerous depositions and documents that focus on the RIF process, Regan’s testimony is hardly
so critical as to make its absence crippling to LMGT’s defense.
3. Fading of Memories and Loss of Documents
LMGT also argues that it has suffered substantial prejudice because “memories have faded
and documents have been lost during the EEOC’s delay.” A defendant claiming prejudice due to
lost memory must prove the loss of memory was caused by a plaintiff’s unreasonable delay.
11 At the outset, the EEOC argues that LMGT had an absolute duty to preserve its testimony once it received prompt notice of the discrimination charge. See Jacksonville Shipyards, 690 F. Supp. at 1000 (holding that prompt notice is dispositive for the issue of prejudice). The Court rejects this argument. The record reflects that Regan’s death was sudden, and only three months after the filing of the complaint. LMGT’s failure to depose him within three months of the filing of the complaint should not operate as a bar to its raising the defense of laches.
12 The EEOC argues LMGT has not successfully proven that Regan would benefit its case. See Lorillard Corp., 448 F.2d at 958. The Court, however, does not find this argument particularly compelling, because various persons suggest that Regan agreed with the RIF decisions.
13 Baxter and Kurland did not fall under Regan’s chain of command, so LMGT’s need for testimony from Regan for those two employees does not appear to be critical.
-10-

See Peterson, 702 F. Supp. at 1222; EEOC v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 622 F.2d 271, 280 (7th Cir. 1980); see also see also Navy Federal Credit Union, 424 F.3d at 409.
In the instant case, the parties have taken 23 depositions; yet LMGT has only been able to identify one fact witness—Catherine Jost Melquist—whose memory is admittedly “faded.”14 Melquist, however, can hardly be labeled a key witness because she did not make the decision to include Kurland in the RIF. Moreover, LMGT has produced no evidence to show that Melquist’s memory would have been fresh one, two, or three years ago, but is not fresh today. Therefore, LMGT cannot show that Melquist’s faded memory was caused by the EEOC’s inordinate delay. See Navy Federal Credit Union, 424 F.3d at 409.
LMGT’s allegation that “documents have been lost” is even less compelling. This type of bald allegation certainly cannot establish substantial prejudice sufficient to warrant equitable relief under the laches doctrine.15 4. Increased Back Pay Liability
The potential for increased back pay liability is arguably the most prejudicial aspect of the EEOC’s delay. The Court, however, need not address this issue at this juncture; a court may use its equitable power to “to locate a just result in light of the circumstances peculiar to the case” if the EEOC ultimately prevails on the merits. See Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOC, 432 U.S. 355, 373 (1977); see also EEOC v. Am. Nat’l Bank, 574 F.2d 1173, 1176 (4th Cir. 1978) (concluding that
14 LMGT also points to the EEOC’s investigator’s fading memory. Considering, however, that this case requires the Court to review the evidence de novo, any EEOC determination is immaterial.
15 Moreover, once LMGT received notice of Kurland’s filing of a EEOC charge, on or about November 2, 2000, LMGT had a duty to “preserve all personnel records relevant to the charge or action until final disposition of the charge or the action.” 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14.
-11-

equitable relief for back pay claims should “best be considered after the facts have been fully developed, if the commission ultimately prevails”).
In sum, while this Court concludes that the EEOC’s delay in filing suit was unreasonable, LMGT has not been sufficiently prejudiced by that delay to warrant the sanction of dismissal of the action.16 However, should the EEOC prevail on the merits, the Court reserves the discretion to reduce any excessive back pay liability attributable to the period of unreasonable delay.
IV. If the EEOC determines that an employer engaged in a discriminatory employment practice, it must attempt to achieve voluntary compliance “through informal methods of conciliation, conference, and persuasion.” 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) (2000). Conciliation is one of the EEOC’s most essential functions. EEOC v. Radiator Specialty, 610 F.2d 178, 183 (4th Cir. 1979). While it is a jurisdictional requirement to filing suit, “[t]he law requires . . . no more than a good faith attempt at conciliation.” Id. In doing so, the EEOC must outline the basis for its determination of discrimination, offer an opportunity for voluntary compliance, and respond flexibly to the reasonable attitudes of the employer.17 See EEOC v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 340 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 2003). The fundamental question is whether the EEOC’s conduct was reasonable and responsive “under all the circumstances.” Id.
16 The Court cannot ignore LMGT’s pending motion for summary judgment on the merits, in support of which LMGT has submitted hundreds (if not thousands) of pages of legal argument and exhibits to the Court. Indeed, that herculean effort, standing alone, might be sufficient to show that LMGT has not been “crippled” by the EEOC’s excessive delay.
17 The Tenth Circuit has held that conciliation efforts are sufficient if the EEOC “makes a sincere and reasonable effort to negotiate by providing the defendant an adequate opportunity to respond to all charges and negotiate possible settlements.” See EEOC v. Prudential Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass’n., 763 F.2d 1166, 1169 (10th Cir. 1985). This Court embraces the Asplundh Tree formula, articulated above, as have both parties.
-12-

A. Conciliation of Jeffrey Kurland’s Claim LMGT first claims that the EEOC did not in fact engage in “good faith” negotiations for
conciliation in regards to Jeffrey Kurland, and therefore, seeks dismissal. Specifically, LMGT insists that the EEOC’s request to reinstate Kurland was unreasonable because Lockheed has since sold CMC to Telenor, and thus, Kurland could not be reinstated to his prior position.
The EEOC’s initial conciliation letter requested that Kurland be reinstated to a “position comparable to the position he held” before he was laid off; it did not insist that LMGT hire Kurland to work for a company that LMGT no longer owned. LMGT never objected to reinstatement in the short course of the conciliation discussions. Instead, LMGT rejected the EEOC’s back pay calculations, and refused to enter into any Conciliation Agreement with Kurland, based on its wholesale rejection of the EEOC’s determination of discrimination. When LMGT effectively cut off a good faith conciliation attempt, it cannot accuse the EEOC of not attempting to conciliate. See Radiator Specialty, 610 F.2d at 182. The Court concludes that the EEOC’s conciliation efforts regarding Kurland were reasonable and responsive under all the circumstances. See Asplundh, 340 F.3d at 1259. B. Conciliation With Regard to Other Claimants
LMGT finally argues that the EEOC did not make any conciliation efforts as to claimants other than Kurland, and therefore, urges the Court to dismiss those claims. The EEOC is not required to identify or negotiate in regard to each potential claimant in order to satisfy its duty of good faith attempts at conciliation. See EEOC v. Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., 677 F. Supp. 264, 265-66 (D.N.J.1988) (finding that, although the parties only discussed the original claimant—and no other class members—at the conciliation conference, the EEOC fulfilled its duty to conciliate, as the potential for class action was mentioned in the Letter of Violation, and the investigation involved
-13-

a broader class-based search). The EEOC must only put a “defendant on notice that a class action may be brought.” See EEOC v. Hugin Sweda, Inc., 750 F. Supp. 165, 167 (D. N.J. 1990).
It is clear that conciliation discussions never involved a discussion of back pay for employees other than Kurland. The Court’s analysis, however, does not end there. In its Letter of Determination, the EEOC concluded “that there is a reasonable cause to believe that [Kurland] and a class of older workers (age 40 and older) were selected for position abolishment and permanent layoff because of their age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act[.]” MSJ, App. 3 (emphasis added). The letter further explained that the basis for the determination was that the evaluation criteria for determining who should be included in the RIF were not uniformly applied—which, at the very least, suggests that any suit could include persons beyond Kurland. Moreover, the EEOC’s investigation went well beyond Kurland’s termination; the EEOC subpoenaed personnel files of all other claimants during the initial investigation. Under the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the Letter of Determination and the scope of the investigation put LMGT on notice as to the possibility of a suit seeking relief for a class of persons.
Certainly, the EEOC could have made further attempts at conciliation. LMGT’s final response, however, was not an attempt to negotiate specific terms of a Conciliation Agreement; rather, it challenged the very basis of the EEOC’s allegations. In light of LMGT’s blanket denial of liability in regard to Kurland, this Court finds that the EEOC made sufficient efforts to conciliate in good faith, and reasonably concluded that conciliation discussions on behalf of other class members would be a futile waste of resources.
-14-

IV. For the reasons articulated above, the Court will deny LMGT’s motion for summary judgment by separate order.

September 13, 2007 Date

/s/ Roger W. Titus United States District Judge

-15-

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Plaintiff
v.
LOCKHEED MARTIN GLOBAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.
Defendant

* * * * * * * Civil Case No. RWT 05-287 * * * * * *

O R D E R Upon consideration of Defendant’s Initial Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Laches and Failure to Conciliate [Paper No. 118], the opposition thereto, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is, this 13th day of September, 2007, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, ORDERED, that Defendant’s Initial Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Laches and Failure to Conciliate [Paper No. 118] is hereby DENIED.

/s/ Roger W. Titus United States District Judge

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Plaintiff
v.
LOCKHEED MARTIN GLOBAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.
Defendant

* * * * * * * Case number: 05cv287 RWT * * * * * *

ORDER

Upon consideration of Defendant Lockheed Martin Global Telecommunications, Inc.’s

Second Motion for Summary Judgment on the Age Discrimination Claims [Paper No. 135] and

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Thomas Turner Affidavit [Paper No. 166], the responses

and replies thereto, and the arguments of counsel presented at the hearing conducted before the

undersigned on October 5, 2007, and for the reasons stated on the record, it is this 9th day of

October, 2007, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,

ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Thomas Turner Affidavit [Paper

No. 166] is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendant Lockheed Martin Global Telecommunications, Inc.’s Second

Motion for Summary Judgment on the Age Discrimination Claims [Paper No. 135] is DENIED.

/s/ ROGER W. TITUS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES EQUAL

:

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

:

Plaintiff

:

v

:

Civil Action No. RWT-05-0287

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, :

Defendants

:

o0o

SETTLEMENT ORDER

(LOCAL RULE 111)

This Court has been advised by the parties that the above action has been settled, including

all counter-claims, cross-claims, third-party claims and attorney’s fees, if any. Accordingly,

pursuant to Local Rule 111, it is this 7th day of March, 2008, by the United States District Court for

the District of Maryland,

ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with each party to bear its own costs unless

otherwise agreed, in which event the costs shall be adjusted between the parties in accordance with

their agreement. The entry of this Order is WITHOUT PREJUDICE either to the right of the

parties to file a consent decree or to the right of a party to move for good cause within 90 days to

reopen this action if settlement is not consummated. If no party moves to reopen, the dismissal shall

be WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court serve copies of this Order, by United

States mail, upon the attorneys of record for the parties appearing in this case.

/s/ ROGER W. TITUS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 444 F.Supp.2d 414 (2006)
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, Defendant.
No. 05cv0287 RWT.
United States District Court, D. Maryland.
August 8, 2006.
415 *415 Debra Michele Lawrence, Gwendolyn Young Reams, Gerald S. Kiel, Maria Luisa Morocco, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Baltimore, MD, Maria Salacuse, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.
Brett Ingerman, Karen Turner McWilliams, Emily Jean Caputo, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary U.S. LLP, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
TITUS, District Judge.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") brings this action to challenge certain conduct of Lockheed Martin Corporation in the wake of its merger with COMSAT Corporation in 2000. The action involves two unrelated sets of claims, only one of which is at issue in the instant motions. At issue are claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, alleging that Lockheed unlawfully retaliated against a former COMSAT employee, Denise Isaac, by denying her severance benefits after she had been laid off as a result of the merger and had filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC.[1]
Lockheed now moves to dismiss the retaliation claims pertaining to Ms. Isaac pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), or alternatively for summary judgment. Paper No. 13. The EEOC cross-moves for summary judgment. Paper No. 20. For the reasons that follow, this Court holds that the EEOC is entitled to summary judgment in its favor, and will, by separate order, grant the EEOC's motion and deny Lockheed's motion.
I
Denise Isaac had been an employee of COMSAT Corporation for over twenty years when she was laid off as a result of COMSAT's merger into a Lockheed Martin subsidiary, Lockheed Martin Global Telecommunications. On October 16, 2000, Lockheed sent Ms. Isaac a letter informing her that her position would be eliminated effective 416 October 30, 2000. Mot. exh. 6.[2] The letter also informed *416 Isaac that she would receive severance benefits under the COMSAT Corporation Salary Continuation Plan, but only "in exchange for" signing a Release of Claims form that was attached to the letter. Id.
The release provided, in relevant part:
Claims not Released. By this agreement, I am not releasing claims for benefits I may have under the Corporation's other benefit plans (such as the pension plan), any rights to benefits under applicable workers' compensation statutes or government-provided unemployment benefits, or any rights to enforce this Release.
Claims Released. Subject only to the exclusions noted in the previous paragraph, I agree to waive and fully release any and all claims of any nature whatsoever (known and unknown), promises,

causes of action or similar rights of any type ("Claims") that I may now have or have had with respect to any of the Released Parties listed below. These Claims released include, but are not limited to, claims that in any way relate to my wages, bonuses, commissions, unused sick pay; any claims to severance or other benefits; any claims to expenses, attorneys' fees or other indemnities; or claims for other personal remedies or damages sought in any legal proceeding or charge filed with any court, federal, state, or local agency either by me or by a person claiming to act on my behalf or in my interest.
. . . . I specifically, but without limitation, agree to release all of the Released Parties under the following:
Antidiscrimination laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, . . . the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, . . . or any other local, state, or federal statutes prohibiting discrimination. . . .
Id. (emphasis in original). The release further provided that
[t]he parties agree that this Release prohibits my ability to pursue any Claims or charges against the Released Parties seeking monetary relief or other remedies for myself and/or as a representative on behalf of others. This agreement does not affect my ability to cooperate with any future ethics, legal or other investigations, whether conducted by the Corporation or any governmental agencies.
Id.
Isaac declined to sign the release. Instead, on October 27, 2000, she filed a charge with the EEOC, alleging that her termination was discriminatory on the basis of race, gender, and age. Mot. exh. 3.
On November 2, 2000, through counsel, she sent Lockheed a letter asserting that notwithstanding the charge, she had the right to receive severance benefits, and that the release was retaliatory as written. Cross-mot. exh. 2. Lockheed responded by letter on November 20, 2000, stating that it "would not amend the Release of Claims form in any way." Cross-mot. exh. 3. The response also stated that
If Ms. Isaac decides to sign the release as is and receive severance benefits, she will have to dismiss her EEOC charge against the company. We will give her until the close of business on Friday, December 1, 2000, to consider the release. If she does not sign by then, she will be terminated from employment and cease to be paid as of that date, and will forfeit any opportunity to receive severance benefits from the company.
Id.
Isaac never signed the release. She was terminated effective December 1, 2000, and never received any severance benefits. The EEOC filed this action on her behalf on January 31, 2005.[3]
417 *417 II
A
When ruling on a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the Court "should accept as true all well-pleaded allegations and should view the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff'; the motion "should not be granted unless it appears certain that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would support its claim and would entitle it to relief." Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir.1993).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, "summary judgment is proper `if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'" Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). "A material fact is

one that `might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.'" Spriggs v. Diamond Auto Glass, 242 F.3d 179, 183 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)).
With respect to the instant claims, there are no disputed material facts; the chronology outlined above is undisputed and well supported by documentation submitted with the pleadings. Thus, the outcome can be decided as a matter of law; the question is the application of the civil rights laws to the instant facts.
B
The charge that Isaac filed with the EEOC arose under several different antidiscrimination statutes, but all of them have similar antiretaliation provisions. See, e.g., EEOC v. SunDance Rehabilitation Corp., 328 F.Supp.2d 826 (N.D.Ohio 2004). For instance, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act provides that
[i]t shall be unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment . . . because such individual . . . has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under this chapter.
29 U.S.C. § 623(d). Similarly, Title VII provides that
[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment . . . because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). These provisions forbid not the "substantive" discrimination on the basis of age, race, gender, etc., that are the subject of the civil rights laws generally, but "discrimination against employees who pursue their federal rights" under those laws in 0907 other words, retaliation against employees who, for example, file an EEOC charge. EEOC v. Bd. of Governors of State Colleges and Univs., 957 F.2d 424 (7th Cir.1992).
III
The EEOC alleges that Lockheed's actions unlawfully interfered with Isaac's protected activity in two respects. 418 First, it argues that Lockheed's conditioning of Isaac's severance benefits on the withdrawal *418 of her EEOC
charge0907whether or not she was otherwise entitled to those benefits before she filed the charge 0907constituted retaliation. Second, it argues that the release itself prohibits the signor from filing an EEOC charge, and that it is thus facially retaliatory. The EEOC is correct in both respects, so each of these theories provides an independent ground upon which it must prevail.
A
To demonstrate retaliation, a plaintiff must show that (1) she engaged in protected activity; (2) an action is taken against her "that a reasonable employee would have found . . . materially adverse"; and (3) that action had a causal connection to the protected activity.[4]See Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 2415, 165 L.Ed.2d 345; Bryant v. Aiken Reg'l Med. Ctrs., Inc., 333 F.3d 536, 543 (4th Cir.2003). As discussed above, filing an EEOC charge is a protected activity, and neither party disputes this. Moreover, denial of severance benefits is an adverse employment action, and therefore an action "that a reasonable employee would have found . . . materially adverse." White, 126 S.Ct. at 2415; e.g., McGuinness v. Lincoln Hall, 263 F.3d 49, 53 (2d Cir.2001) (finding an adverse employment action, as part of a prima facie case of disparate treatment, when one employee received a smaller severance package than another). The dispute thus centers on the third element. Lockheed advances three arguments as to why no materially adverse action resulted from Isaac's protected activity.
First, Lockheed argues, the timing was wrong: Isaac filed her EEOC charge after she had been presented with the release, so Lockheed's insistence that she sign the release and forfeit any rights to file a charge with the

EEOC cannot have been retaliation for her protected activity. This argument, however, incorrectly identifies the adverse action. The retaliatory act was not presenting Isaac with the release 0907though as will be discussed, the 419 release was itself facially retaliatory. *419 Rather, the retaliatory act was denying her severance benefits.[5]
Lockheed's communications with Ms. Isaac show that it conditioned her receipt of severance benefits on her withdrawal of the EEOC charge. In its letter of November 20, 2000, Lockheed stated explicitly that "[i]f Ms. Isaac decides to sign the release as is and receive severance benefits, she will have to dismiss her EEOC charge against the company." Cross-mot. exh. 3. Lockheed sent this letter in response to Isaac's request that the terms of the release be modified and to her assertion that she was entitled to severance benefits "despite having a pending EEO charge[] against [Lockheed]." Cross-mot. exh. 2. This exchange makes it clear that Lockheed did not deny Isaac severance benefits because of an abstract dispute about the wording of its release or because, for unprotected reasons, Isaac refused to sign it. Rather, Lockheed presented Isaac with a Hobson's Choice: she could withdraw her EEOC charge, or she could forfeit her severance benefits.
Lockheed's second argument is that this choice was legal because Isaac had no entitlement to severance benefits at all.[6] The severance benefit, in this view, was additional compensation that Lockheed offered in exchange for giving up a right. Unfortunately for Lockheed's argument, though, "[a] benefit that is part and parcel of the employment relationship may not be doled out in a discriminatory fashion, even if the employer would be free under the employment contract simply not to provide the benefit at all." Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 75, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984). Whether severance benefits are a right or a discretionary gift or anything in between is therefore irrelevant. Lockheed might well have been free to offer severance benefits to no one, but it cannot provide them only to employees who refrain from participating in protected activity. See EEOC v. Bd. of Governors, 957 F.2d at 430 (holding that even where an employer "had no obligation to provide its employees with a right to grievance procedures at all," it could not withhold them only from employees who filed EEOC charges). To do so is "to discriminate against [an] employee . . . because [s]he has made a charge" and is unlawful. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).
Lockheed's final argument as to why its actions were not retaliatory is that there is a distinction between a waiver 420 of a right to file an EEOC charge and a waiver of a right to collect damages; the latter, Lockheed *420 argues,
may be exacted in consideration for monetary compensation. However, whatever the effect of Lockheed's release, see infra, Lockheed's letter of November 20 could hardly have been more explicit: "If Ms. Isaac decides to sign the release as is and receive severance benefits, she will have to dismiss her EEOC charge against the company." Opp. exh. 3 (emphasis added). Lockheed demanded the withdrawal of an EEOC charge if Isaac was to get severance benefits. This was retaliatory, and the EEOC is accordingly entitled to summary judgment in its favor.[7]
B
The EEOC argues in the alternative that the release was facially retaliatory, and that it would therefore be entitled to summary judgment even if Lockheed had not so clearly presented her with a choice between severance benefits and an EEOC charge. The EEOC is correct.
The question of whether and when a release can be facially retaliatory is one of first impression in the Fourth Circuit. However, the Supreme Court has held that an employment policy may be discriminatory, see Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 124, 105 S.Ct. 613, 83 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985), and other courts have applied this precedent to cases like the one at bar, in which an employer requires an employee to contractually waive the right to file an EEOC charge in order to receive an employment benefit. See EEOC v. Bd. of Governors, 957 F.2d at 431 (holding that a collective bargaining agreement that prevented employees who filed EEOC charges from using an arbitrated grievance process was a prohibited discriminatory policy); SunDance, 328 F.Supp.2d at 838 (holding that "the provision of [a separation agreement] conditioning severance payments on an employee agreeing not to file a charge with the EEOC is facially retaliatory in violation of the ADA, ADEA, EPA, and Title VII").

Lockheed argues that its release did not prohibit employees who signed it from filing a charge with the EEOC, and accordingly did not impinge on any protected activity. Rather, it argues, the release merely waived any right of an employee to recover monetary damages against Lockheed, including under the antidiscrimination laws, and in exchange offered severance benefits. See Mot. at 8-14. If the scope of the release were only what Lockheed alleges it was, it would probably not be facially retaliatory. Courts have distinguished between claims filed for monetary or other personal relief, the purpose of which is "the seeking of `one's own' from another," and the filing of a charge with the EEOC, the main purpose of which is "to inform the EEOC of possible discrimination." EEOC 421 v. Cosmair, 821 F.2d *421 1085, 1089 (5th Cir.1987). The former may, "under particular circumstances," be waived.[8]See, e.g., Runyan v. Nat'l Cash Register Corp., 787 F.2d 1039, 1044 (6th Cir.1986) (en banc).
However, Lockheed's release goes farther. By its terms, the release defines "Claims" as "claims of any nature whatsoever (known and unknown), promises, causes of action or similar rights of any time." Mot. exh. 6. This could hardly be broader language, and it encompasses all monetary and other personal rights that an employee might have against Lockheed. Read in isolation, this provision might or might not encompass EEOC charges. But the release does not bar only "Claims" by employees; it "prohibits [employees'] ability to pursue any Claims or charges against the Released Parties seeking monetary relief or other remedies for [them]sel[ves] and/or as a representative on behalf of others." Id. (emphasis added). This language distinguishes "charges" even from the expansive definition of "Claims," and it explicitly includes "other remedies . . . as a representative on behalf of others" rather than just "the seeking of `one's own' from another." Indeed, there is little that "charges" seeking "other remedies" could comprise other than EEOC charges. Furthermore, this interpretation is supported by Lockheed's own statements to Ms. Isaac that if she "decides to sign the release as is and receive severance benefits, she will have to dismiss her EEOC charge against the company." Opp. exh. 3; see supra Part III.A.
Because this Court concludes that Lockheed's release includes EEOC charges within its scope, this case is indistinguishable from EEOC v. SunDance. SunDance involved an employee who was offered a Separation Agreement that offered severance pay but required her to "not institute, commence, prosecute or otherwise pursue any proceeding, action, complaint, claim, charge, or grievance against Company . . . in any administrative, judicial, or other forum whatsoever." 328 F.Supp.2d at 829. The Lockheed language has the same relevant effect: signatories may not file EEOC charges. The district court in SunDance held that although "knowing and voluntary waivers" of discrimination claims are permitted by statute and case law, conditioning benefits on the waiver of a right to file an EEOC charge at all as 0907 opposed to the right to file a lawsuit or collect monetary damages0907interferes with the public interest in EEOC enforcement of the ADEA, and is impermissible. See also 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1509, 1541 (Senate Report on the Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act, an amendment to the ADEA) (A waiver may not "be used to interfere with the employee's protected right to file a charge or to participate in an EEOC investigation or proceeding. . . . An employee may validly waive the right to recover in his own lawsuit as well as the right to recover in a suit brought by the Commission on his own behalf."). Thus, the court held, SunDance's release was facially retaliatory.
Notably, in its discussion of waiving claims versus barring charges, the SunDance court distinguished one of the two cases upon which Lockheed tries to rely: Wastak v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, 333 F.3d 120 (3d Cir.2003). The same logic applies to the other principal case Lockheed cites, Syverson v. IBM, 2004 U.S. Dist. 422 Lexis 27844 (N.D.Cal.2004). *422 Even leaving aside the claims/charges distinction, however, there is another important difference between these cases on the one hand, and SunDance and the instant case on the other: Wastak and Syverson both involved plaintiffs who did sign a waiver, and who subsequently attempted to get out from the release's terms. As a matter of logic and law, there is a difference between whether a contract that waives claims is enforceable, and whether offering that contract or conditioning benefits upon it constitutes retaliation under the ADEA or Title VII. Neither Wastak nor Syverson involved a retaliation claim, because the plaintiffs got benefits and never faced an adverse employment action, but tried to bring discrimination suits later. [9]
In SunDance, even though the EEOC brought its case against SunDance only as a facial challenge, and admittedly could not make out a prima facie case of retaliation as to the affected employee in particular, the fact that the release was facially retaliatory entitled the EEOC to a permanent injunction against maintaining or enforcing the portion of the agreement that barred the filing of EEOC charges. SunDance, 328 F.Supp.2d at

836-37, 839. Here, unlike in SunDance, the EEOC can make and has made a prima facie case of retaliation as to Ms. Isaac, but the reasoning of SunDance otherwise applies: as an alternative ground for liability, Lockheed's release is facially retaliatory, and the EEOC is entitled to summary judgment in its favor on this ground as well.
IV
For the foregoing reasons, the EEOC is entitled to summary judgment. Its motion will be granted by separate order, and Lockheed's will be denied. Because the parties have not argued or presented evidence as to the appropriate remedies, the Court will hold a telephone status conference to schedule further proceedings, which it will also set by separate order.
ORDER
Upon consideration of Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation's Motion to Dismiss Claims Asserted on Behalf of Denise Isaac or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment [Paper No. 13], Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [Paper No. 20], the oppositions and replies thereto, and the arguments of counsel before the undersigned on January 30, 2006, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is this 8th of August, 2006, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
ORDERED, that Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation's Motion to Dismiss Claims Asserted on Behalf of Denise Isaac or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment [Paper No. 13] is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Cross-Motion for [Partial] Summary Judgment [Paper No. 20] is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as to liability for the Counts alleging retaliation against Denise Isaac; and it is further
423 *423 ORDERED, that the parties are to participate in a telephone status conference, with the call to be initiated by the Court, to discuss further proceedings on the issue of remedies, at 5:00 p.m. on September 12, 2006.
[1] The EEOC brings additional claims against Lockheed Martin, not at issue here, that allege substantive age discrimination against Jeffrey Kurland and other "similarly situated individuals." Paper No. 1, ¶¶ 22-26. The parties chose not to address these other claims at this early stage of the litigation, but retain the right to file dispositive motions regarding these claims on or before the dispositive motions deadline, presently set for January 7, 2007. See Paper No. 45 (Order of May 31, 2006, extending the scheduling order).
[2] Throughout this opinion, "Mot." refers to Lockheed's motion, Paper No. 13; "Crossmot." refers to the EEOC's opposition and cross-motion, Paper No. 20; "Repl." refers to Lockheed's reply to the EEOC's opposition and opposition to the EEOC's cross-motion, Paper No. 27; and "Cross-repl." refers to the EEOC's reply to Lockheed's opposition, Paper No. 29.
[3] Lockheed argues that the EEOC "failed to offer Lockheed an opportunity to conciliate" before filing suit, and that this constitutes "a separate basis for dismissal of the EEOC's claims on Ms. Isaac's behalf." Mot. at 4-5 n. 3. However, the EEOC did offer Lockheed an opportunity to conciliate in its letter of July 31, 2002, see Cross-mot. exh. 5, so the argument is unavailing.
[4] At the time this case was briefed and argued, the prevailing standard in the Fourth Circuit held that a plaintiff must show not just an action "that a reasonable employee would have found . . . materially adverse," but an "adverse employment action," i.e., an action that "`adversely affected' the `terms, conditions, or benefits' of her employment." Von Gunten v. Maryland, 243 F.3d 858, 865 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting Munday v. Waste Mgmt. of North America, Inc., 126 F.3d 239, 243 (4th Cir.1997)). Thus, a plaintiff was required to show that (1) she engaged in protected activity; (2) an adverse employment action was taken against her; and (3) the adverse employment action had a causal connection to the protected activity. See Bryant, 333 F.3d at 543.

Since then, the Supreme Court decided Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, which held that, at least in the Title VII context, the previous Fourth Circuit standard was too narrow and "[t]he scope of the antiretaliation provision extends beyond workplace-related or employment-related retaliatory acts and harm." Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 126 S.Ct. at 2414. The standard enunciated here represents an effort to state the Fourth Circuit standard as modified by this new precedent.
However, the outcome in this case would be the same under the pre-White standard or under any plausible postWhite modification. As will be discussed below, the actions taken against Ms. Isaac qualified as adverse employment actions under the pre-White standard in this circuit. Because White broadens and does not narrow the set of acts that can constitute retaliation, the adverse employment action taken against Ms. Isaac is also an action "that a reasonable employee would have found . . . materially adverse."
This Court therefore does not need to decide whether and to what extent White applies to the retaliation provisions of the antidiscrimination statutes other than Title VII, such as the ADEA, under which the EEOC also brings suit here.
[5] For similar reasons, neither the best evidence nor parol evidence rules bar consideration of Lockheed's letter of November 20, 2000, Lockheed's arguments notwithstanding. See Repl. at 11-12; Tr. (Paper No. 32) at 13, 11.16-18. The sending of the letter0907containing a choice between maintaining an EEOC charge and collecting severance benefits0907 was the retaliatory act, not the presentation of the release on October 16, 2000.
[6] Lockheed makes this argument on the basis of the Lockheed-COMSAT merger documents. Lockheed's reliance on these documents is misplaced; it is a basic tenet of corporate law that in a merger, "[t]he successor is liable for all the debts and obligations of each nonsurviving corporation." Md.Code Ann., Corps. & Ass'ns § 3-114. Thus, the merger (no matter what its terms were) did not extinguish Lockheed's liability to Isaac under the COMSAT severance plan. Lockheed counters that COMSAT plan could be terminated at will, but it has offered no evidence that it actually was0907a statement that Lockheed was not assuming an obligation does not constitute a termination. See Paper No. 33 (Supp. Br. by Lockheed), at 5 (arguing that a statement in the merger agreement that Lockheed "would not assume" the severance plan terminated it). But all this is academic, as the denial of severance benefits constituted retaliation even assuming, arguendo, that the conferral of severance benefits was entirely a matter of discretion.
[7] The EEOC has proffered direct evidence of retaliation; therefore, the familiar burdenshifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), which permits a plaintiff to establish a rebuttable presumption that an employer's conduct was discriminatory, is inapposite. See Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 121, 105 S.Ct. 613, 83 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985) ("[T]he McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination.").
If, however, the McDonnell Douglas approach applies, the EEOC has made out a prima facie case of retaliation, and the burden shifts to Lockheed to proffer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action alleged. In this case, no legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action has been or can be alleged0907Lockheed gave severance benefits to Isaac's coworkers, but not to her, because she had refused to sign the release and withdraw her EEOC charge.
Either way, the EEOC is entitled to summary judgment.
[8] This Court does not and need not decide whether Lockheed's release, to the extent it attempts to waive rights to monetary relief, complies with the requirements of all relevant laws and is enforceable. See, e.g., Long v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 105 F.3d 1529, 1539 (3d Cir.1997) (discussing the stringent requirements for "knowing and voluntary" waivers of ADEA rights under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990).
[9] Both Wastak and Syverson were decided prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, which overruled the holdings of several circuits that an employee must show an "adverse employment action," and instead held that "a plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse." White, 126 S.Ct. at 2415; see supra Part III.A & n. 3.

Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?494614008177713-L_1...

CASREF, CLOSED, MAG-D, MAG-S
U.S. District Court District of Maryland (Greenbelt) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:05-cv-00287-RWT

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Lockheed Martin Corporation et al Assigned to: Judge Roger W Titus Referred to: Magistrate Judge William Connelly (Settlement) Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Age)

Date Filed: 01/31/2005 Date Terminated: 03/07/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Debra Michele Lawrence U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14102092734 Fax: 14109624270 Email: debra.lawrence@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald S Kiel US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14109624207 Fax: 14109624270 Email: gerald.kiel@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gwendolyn Young Reams U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14109624260 Fax: 14109622817 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 21

3/19/2008 1:26 PM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)
V. Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation
2 of 21

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?494614008177713-L_1...
Maria Luisa Morocco US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14102092730 Fax: 14109624270 Email: maria.morocco@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maria Salacuse U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Baltimore Field Office 10 S. Howard Street, 3rd Floor Baltimore, MD 21201 14102092733 Fax: 14109624341 Email: maria.salacuse@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brett Ingerman DLA Piper US LLP 6225 Smith Ave Baltimore, MD 21209-3600 14105803000 Fax: 14105803794 Email: brett.ingerman@dlapiper.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emmett F McGee, Jr DLA Piper US LLP 6225 Smith Ave Baltimore, MD 21209-3600 14105803000 Fax: 14105803211 Email: emmett.mcgee@dlapiper.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Turner McWilliams DLA Piper US LLP 1775 Wiehle Ave Ste 400 Reston, VA 20190
3/19/2008 1:26 PM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)
Defendant Telenor Satellite Services, Inc. TERMINATED: 07/22/2005

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?494614008177713-L_1...
17037734068 Fax: 17037735068 Email: karen.mcwilliams@dlapiper.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Jean Caputo DLA Piper US LLP 6225 Smith Ave Baltimore, MD 21209 14105804146 Fax: 14105803146 Email: emily.caputo@dlapiper.com TERMINATED: 06/05/2007
Jill Schultz Distler DLA Piper US LLP The Marbury Building 6225 Smith Ave Baltimore, MD 21209-3600 14105804802 Fax: 14105803802 Email: jill.distler@dlapiper.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roxane Sokolove Marenberg Piper Rudnick LLP 1200 19th St NW Washington, DC 20036 12028613900 Fax: 12022232085 TERMINATED: 02/02/2006
represented by Roxane Sokolove Marenberg (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2006

Date Filed 01/31/2005
01/31/2005 02/01/2005

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Lockheed Martin Corporation, Telenor Satellite Services, Inc. , filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(raf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
Jury Trial Demand by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (raf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
2 Summons Issued 20 days as to Lockheed Martin Corporation, Telenor Satellite Services, Inc. (raf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/01/2005)

3 of 21

3/19/2008 1:26 PM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?494614008177713-L_1...

05/09/2005 05/19/2005 05/19/2005 07/22/2005 08/01/2005 09/27/2005 09/28/2005 10/25/2005 10/26/2005 11/02/2005 11/02/2005 11/02/2005

3 Correspondence from Court Clerk re: Service not effected and Request for Status Report. Status Report due by 5/20/2005. (hbm, Court Clerk) (Entered: 05/09/2005)
4 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time Under Rule 4(m) to Serve Complaint by Lockheed Martin Corporation, Telenor Satellite Services, Inc.. Responses due by 6/6/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Marenberg, Roxane) (Entered: 05/19/2005)
5 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 4 Consent Motion to Extend the 120-Day Service Requirement. The new deadline for perfecting service is August 1, 2005. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 5/19/05. (Titus, Roger) (Entered: 05/19/2005)
6 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Lockheed Martin Corporation, filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
7 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Lockheed Martin Corporation waiver sent on 7/27/2005, answer due 9/26/2005. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 08/01/2005)
8 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 6 Amended Complaint by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Responses due by 10/14/2005 (Marenberg, Roxane) (Entered: 09/27/2005)
9 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 8 Consent Motion for Extension of Time for Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint by October 27, 2005. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 9/28/05. (Titus, Roger) (Entered: 09/28/2005)
10 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Filed by the EEOC and by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Responses due by 11/14/2005 (Marenberg, Roxane) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
11 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 10 Joint Motion for Extension of Time for Defendant to File Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint by November 3, 2005. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 10/25/05. (Titus, Roger) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
12 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Lockheed Martin Corporation.(Marenberg, Roxane) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
13 MOTION to Dismiss Claims Asserted by EEOC on Behalf of Denise Isaac or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment by Lockheed Martin Corporation; Responses due by 11/21/2005 (Marenberg, Roxane) (Paper pleadings recv'd. 11/3/05) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
14 Memorandum re 13 MOTION to Dismiss Claims Asserted by EEOC on Behalf of Denise Isaac or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit # 8 Exhibit # 9 Exhibit # 10 Exhibit # 11 Exhibit # 12 Exhibit # Exhibit)(Marenberg, Roxane) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/24/2006 (elt, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 11/02/2005)

4 of 21

3/19/2008 1:26 PM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?494614008177713-L_1...

11/02/2005 11/03/2005 11/17/2005 11/18/2005 12/21/2005 12/22/2005 12/23/2005 12/28/2005 12/29/2005
01/03/2006 01/05/2006

15 NOTICE by Lockheed Martin Corporation re 14 Memorandum, Notice of Filing of Lengthy Exhibit (Marenberg, Roxane) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
16 MEMORANDUM Scheduling Hearing for January 30, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. on 13 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Claims Asserted on Behalf of Denise Isaac or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. (Titus, Roger)(c/m 11/3/05, cmc) (Entered: 11/03/2005)
17 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 13 MOTION to Dismiss Claims Asserted by EEOC on Behalf of Denise Isaac or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 12/5/2005 (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
18 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 17 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 13 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss/Summary Judgment. Response due by 12/21/2005; Reply due by 1/4/2006. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 11/17/05. (Titus, Roger) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
19 (FILED IN ERROR) RESPONSE in Opposition re 13 MOTION to Dismiss Claims Asserted by EEOC on Behalf of Denise Isaac or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment and cross motion for summary judgment filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 1/4/2006. (Attachments: # # )(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 12/21/2005)
20 RESPONSE in Opposition re 13 MOTION to Dismiss Claims Asserted by EEOC on Behalf of Denise Isaac or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment and cross motion for summary judgment filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 1/5/2006. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
21 NOTICE to Substitute Attorney Roxane Sokolove Marenberg (Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
22 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 20 Response in Opposition to Motion, to Dismiss/Summary Judgment by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Responses due by 1/16/2006 (Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 12/28/2005)
23 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 22 Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation's Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Claims Asserted on Behalf of Denise Isaac or, in the Alternative for Summary Judgment (UP TO AND INCLUDING JANUARY 12, 2006). Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte (FOR JUDGE ROGER W. TITUS) on 12/29/05. (Messitte, Peter) (Entered: 12/29/2005)
24 (Filed in Error) MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Karen T. McWilliams by Lockheed Martin Corporation. (Caputo, Emily) Modified on 1/3/2006 (ajh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
25 MOTION of Karen T. McWilliams to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Lockheed Martin Corporation. (rank, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/05/2006)

5 of 21

3/19/2008 1:26 PM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?494614008177713-L_1...

01/05/2006 01/12/2006
01/12/2006 01/23/2006
01/26/2006 01/30/2006
02/01/2006 02/03/2006 02/06/2006 02/08/2006 02/09/2006 02/17/2006 02/21/2006 03/09/2006

26 ORDER granting 25 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by the Clerk on 1/5/06. (c/m 1/5/06 rk) (rank, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/05/2006)
27 REPLY to Response to Motion re 13 MOTION to Dismiss Claims Asserted by EEOC on Behalf of Denise Isaac or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation. (Caputo, Emily) (Paper pleadings recv'd. 1/13/06) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
28 NOTICE by Lockheed Martin Corporation of Filing of Lengthy Exhibits (Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
29 RESPONSE in Opposition re 13 MOTION to Dismiss Claimserted by EEOC on Behalf of Denise Isaac or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 2/6/2006. (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
30 NOTICE of Appearance by Brett Ingerman on behalf of Lockheed Martin Corporation (Ingerman, Brett) (Entered: 01/26/2006)
Motion Hearing held on 1/30/2006 re 13 MOTION to Dismiss Claimserted by EEOC on Behalf of Denise Isaac or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgmentfiled by Lockheed Martin Corporation and 19 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment by EEOC held before Judge Roger W Titus. (Court Reporter T. Dunlap) (hbm, Courtroom Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
31 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Report due by 6/15/2006. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 02/01/2006. (c/m 2/1/06)(elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
32 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 01/30/2006 before Judge Roger W. Titus. Court Reporter: Tracy Dunlap. (FILED SEPARATELY) (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
33 Supplemental to Lockheed Martin's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to the EEOC's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
34 NOTICE by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding early mediation (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
35 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge William Connelly for settlement. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 2/9/06. (jmw, Chambers) (Entered: 02/09/2006)
36 ORDER, clarifying scope of referral of case for settlement/ADR. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 02/16/2006. (c/m 2/17/06)(elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
37 ORDER "ADVISING" counsel that a Settlement Conference has been scheduled. Signed by Judge William Connelly on 2/21/06. (rank, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/21/2006)
38 ORDER "ADVISING" counsel that the settlement conference has been rescheduled to May 10, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.. Signed by Magistrate Judge William B. Connelly on 3/9/06. (rank, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 3/10/2006 (rank,

6 of 21

3/19/2008 1:26 PM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?494614008177713-L_1...

03/13/2006 03/14/2006 05/15/2006 05/15/2006 05/26/2006 05/30/2006 05/31/2006 07/21/2006 07/25/2006 08/09/2006 08/09/2006
09/07/2006 09/08/2006

Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 03/09/2006)
39 Joint MOTION to Stay Scheduling Order pending settlement conference by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 3/30/2006 (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
40 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 39 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 3/13/2006. (c/m 3/14/06) (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/14/2006)
41 STATUS REPORT (Joint) Submitted on Behalf of all Parties by Lockheed Martin Corporation. (Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
42 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 6/1/2006 (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
43 RESPONSE in Opposition re 42 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Replies due by 6/9/2006. (Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
44 REPLY to Response to Motion re 42 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
45 ORDER granting 42 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and "MODIFYING" the Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 5/31/06. (rank, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
46 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time For Parties' Expert Disclosure Deadlines by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 8/7/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Salacuse, Maria) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
47 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 46 Consent Motion to Extend the Parties' Expert Disclosure Deadlines. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 7/25/06. (Titus, Roger) (Entered: 07/25/2006)
48 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 8/8/2006. (c/m 8/9/06)(elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/09/2006)
49 ORDER denying 13 Motion to Dismiss Claims Asserted on Behalf of Denise Isaac or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. That Plaintiff EEOC's Cross-Motion for [Partial] Summary Judgment 20 is GRANTED and that JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and that the parties are to participate in a telephone status conference with the call to be initiated by the Court, at 5:00 pm on September 12, 2006. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 8/8/2006. (c/m 8/9/06) (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/09/2006)
50 NOTICE by Lockheed Martin Corporation of Firm Name Change (Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 09/07/2006)
51 Emergency Correspondence re: referral to magistrate for emergency discovery motion (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 09/08/2006)

7 of 21

3/19/2008 1:26 PM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?494614008177713-L_1...

09/08/2006 09/08/2006 09/08/2006 09/11/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/13/2006 09/13/2006 09/20/2006
09/20/2006 09/21/2006 09/21/2006 09/27/2006

52 NOTICE of Appearance by Emmett McGee, Jr on behalf of Lockheed Martin Corporation (Caputo, Emily) Modified on 9/21/2006 (rank, Deputy Clerk).to show correct Attorney (Entered: 09/08/2006)
53 Correspondence re: Plaintiff's Emergency Correspondence re referral to magistrate for emergency discovery motion (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A# 2 Appendix B)(Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
54 Emergency MOTION to Quash by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 9/25/2006 (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 # 11 # 12 # 13 # 14 # 15 # 16 # 17)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
Telephone Status Conference held on 9/11/2006 held before Judge Roger W Titus. (rank, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
55 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Jillyn K. Schulze for discovery. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 9/12/06. (jmw, Chambers) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
57 ORDER "PROVIDING" information instructions relating to pretrial and trial preparation. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 9/12/06. (rank, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
58 Correspondence re: intermediate agreement between the parties regarding third-party subpoenas (Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 09/13/2006)
59 ORDER "ADVISING" counsel that a telephone discovery hearing has been scheduled. Signed by Judge Jillyn K. Schulze on 9/13/06. (rank, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/14/2006)
60 Memorandum re 54 Emergency MOTION to Quash Opposition Memorandum filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Appendix Appendix of Exhibits# 3 Exhibit Ex. 1# 4 Exhibit Ex. 2# 5 Exhibit Ex. 3# 6 Exhibit Ex. 4# 7 Exhibit Ex. 5# 8 Exhibit Ex. 6# 9 Exhibit Ex. 7# 10 Exhibit Ex. 8# 11 Exhibit Ex. 9# 12 Exhibit Ex. 10# 13 Exhibit Ex. 11# 14 Exhibit Ex. 12# 15 Exhibit Ex. 13# 16 Exhibit Ex. 14# 17 Attachment A (unpublished decision of Fourth Circuit))(McGee, Emmett) (Entered: 09/20/2006)
61 Supplemental MOTION to Quash by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 10/10/2006 (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 09/20/2006)
62 [FILED IN ERROR] NOTICE by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 54 Emergency MOTION to Quash (Lengthy Exhibit) (Morocco, Maria) Modified on 9/21/2006 (elt, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 09/21/2006)
63 RESPONSE in Opposition re 61 Supplemental MOTION to Quash Opposition filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation.Replies due by 10/5/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit Ex. 1# 3 Exhibit Ex. 2# 4 Exhibit Ex. 3# 5 Exhibit Ex. 4# 6 Exhibit Ex. 5)(McGee, Emmett) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
64 REPLY to Response to Motion re 54 Emergency MOTION to Quash, 61 Supplemental MOTION to Quash filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

8 of 21

3/19/2008 1:26 PM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?494614008177713-L_1...

09/28/2006 10/17/2006 10/17/2006 10/30/2006
11/02/2006 11/02/2006 11/02/2006 11/02/2006 11/03/2006 11/06/2006
11/06/2006
11/07/2006
11/07/2006

Commission. (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
65 ORDER denying 54 Motion to Quash; denying 61 Motion to Quash, and modifying schedule for completion of discovery. Signed by Judge Jillyn K. Schulze on 09/28/2006. (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/28/2006)
66 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 11/3/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 10/17/2006)
67 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 66 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Jillyn K. Schulze on 10/17/06. (Schulze, Jillyn) (Entered: 10/17/2006)
68 MOTION for Protective Order Limiting Scope of Deposition Examination of Denise Isaac by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 11/16/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum# 2 Exhibit # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
69 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 11/20/2006 (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 11/02/2006)
70 Proposed Pretrial Order submitted by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 11/02/2006)
71 Proposed Jury Instructions by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 11/02/2006)
72 Proposed Voir Dire by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 11/02/2006)
73 STIPULATION Regarding Waiver of Jury Trial by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Lockheed Martin Corporation. (Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 11/03/2006)
74 MOTION for Reconsideration by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Responses due by 11/27/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Lockheed Martin Corporation's Motion for Reconsideration# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
75 MOTION to Shorten Time For Plaintiff to Respond to Lockheed Martin's Motion for Reconsideration by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Responses due by 11/27/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
76 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Raymond Westfall And Marian Hyder As Witnesses by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 11/27/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support thereof# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 11/07/2006)
77 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE ALL FACT AND EXPERT TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9) PERTAINING TO LIABILITY by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 11/27/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support thereof# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 11/07/2006)

9 of 21

3/19/2008 1:26 PM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?494614008177713-L_1...

11/07/2006 11/07/2006 11/09/2006
11/09/2006 11/10/2006 11/10/2006 11/13/2006
11/13/2006 11/16/2006

78 PAPERLESS ORDER APPROVING 73 Stipulation Waiving Right to Jury Trial. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 11/7/06. (Titus, Roger) (Entered: 11/07/2006)
79 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 69 Motion for Extension of Time for Plaintiff to File Motions in Limine by November 9, 2006. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 11/7/06. (Titus, Roger) (Entered: 11/07/2006)
80 MOTION to Dismiss Or, in the Alternative, for Proper Joinder and Substitution of Parties Under Rule 21 by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Responses due by 11/27/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Proper Joinder and Substitution of Parties Under Rule 21# 2 Text of Proposed Order # 3 Exhibit 1# 4 Exhibit 2# 5 Exhibit 3# 6 Exhibit 4# 7 Exhibit 5# 8 Exhibit 6# 9 Exhibit 7# 10 Exhibit 8# 11 Exhibit 9# 12 Exhibit 10# 13 Exhibit 11# 14 Exhibit 12# 15 Exhibit 13# 16 Exhibit 14# 17 Exhibit 15# 18 Exhibit 16# 19 Exhibit 17)(Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
81 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony and Exhibits Relating to Jeffrey Kurland by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Responses due by 11/27/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Lockheed Martin Corporation's Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony and Exhibits Relating to Jeffrey Kurland# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
82 Consent MOTION for Protective Order by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 11/27/2006 (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 11/10/2006)
83 RESPONSE re 82 Consent MOTION for Protective Order Governing Areas of Inquiry for Depositions of EEOC Investigators and Enforcement Supervisor filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McGee, Emmett) (Entered: 11/10/2006)
84 ORDER, that the trial on the damages claims will be held on February 27,, 28, March 1 and March 2, 2007; that Plaintiff files its opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration 74 by November 20, 2006, that Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation file its reply in support of its Motion for Reconsideration 74 by December 11, 2006, that Plaintiff file its opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Proper Joinder and Substitution of Parties 80 by December 1, 2006, that Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation file its reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Proper Joinder and Substitution of Parties 80 by December 11, 2006, that responses be filed to all Motions in Limine [76, 77, and 81] by December 1, 2006, that replies in support of all pending motions [74, 76, 77, 80 and 81] be filed by December 11, 2006, denying as moot 75 Motion to Shorten Time, and that a hearing is scheduled for January 22, 2007 at 8:30 am on all open motions. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 11/9/2006. (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
85 RESPONSE in Opposition re 68 MOTION for Protective Order Limiting Scope of Deposition Examination of Denise Isaac filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation.Replies due by 11/27/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Text of Proposed Order)(McGee, Emmett) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
86 PAPERLESS ORDER finding as moot 68 Motion for Protective Order. Parties were directed to call chambers if a dispute arose during the subject deposition on

10 of 21

3/19/2008 1:26 PM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?494614008177713-L_1...

11/17/2006 11/21/2006
11/21/2006 11/21/2006
11/24/2006 11/28/2006
11/28/2006 11/28/2006 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 12/04/2006 12/07/2006 12/15/2006

11/16/06.. Signed by Judge Jillyn K. Schulze on 11/16/06. (Schulze, Jillyn) (Entered: 11/16/2006)
87 NOTICE by Lockheed Martin Corporation regarding Defendant's Consent to Extension of Time for Plaintiff to Respond to Defendant's Pending Motion for Reconsideration (Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
88 PAPERLESS ORDER APPROVING 87 Request to Extend Time for Plaintiff to File Opposition to 74 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and Parties to File Status Report by November 28, 2006. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 11/21/06. (Titus, Roger) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
89 RESPONSE re 76 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Raymond Westfall And Marian Hyder As Witnesses filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation. (Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
90 RESPONSE re 77 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE ALL FACT AND EXPERT TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9) PERTAINING TO LIABILITY MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE ALL FACT AND EXPERT TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9) PERTAINING TO LIABILITY filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation. (Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
91 REPLY to Response to Motion re 68 MOTION for Protective Order Limiting Scope of Deposition Examination of Denise Isaac filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 11/24/2006)
92 RESPONSE in Opposition re 74 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Replies due by 12/12/2006. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 11/28/2006)
93 Status Report Submitted by Lockheed Martin Corporation (Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 11/28/2006)
94 Status Report Submitted by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 11/28/2006)
95 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Responses due by 12/18/2006 (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
96 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Responses due by 12/18/2006 (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
97 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 95 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Discovery deadline is 2/2/07.. Signed by Judge Jillyn K. Schulze on 12/3/06. (Schulze, Jillyn) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
98 STATUS REPORT regarding retaliation claim by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 12/07/2006)
99 Consent MOTION for Protective Order by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 1/2/2007 (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 12/15/2006)

11 of 21

3/19/2008 1:26 PM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?494614008177713-L_1...

01/10/2007 01/10/2007 01/17/2007 01/18/2007 01/18/2007 01/18/2007 01/19/2007 01/19/2007 01/19/2007
01/22/2007 02/05/2007 02/08/2007

100 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 82 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Jillyn K. Schulze on 1/10/07. (Schulze, Jillyn) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
101 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 99 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Jillyn K. Schulze on 1/10/07. (Schulze, Jillyn) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
102 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Responses due by 2/5/2007 (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
103 NOTICE by Lockheed Martin Corporation of Withdrawal of Its Motion for Reconsideration (Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
104 NOTICE by Lockheed Martin Corporation of Defendant's Withdrawal of its Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative for Proper Joinder and Substitution of Parties Under Rule 21 (Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
105 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 102 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Discovery deadline is 3/2/07.. Signed by Judge Jillyn K. Schulze on 1/18/07. (Schulze, Jillyn) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
106 PAPERLESS ORDER WITHDRAWING 80 Motion to Dismiss; APPROVING 104 Notice of Withdrawal. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 1/19/07. (Titus, Roger) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
107 PAPERLESS ORDER WITHDRAWING 74 Motion for Reconsideration; APPROVING 103 Notice of Withdrawal. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 1/19/07. (Titus, Roger) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
108 ORDER that the Rule 26(e)(2) supplementation be filed by February 8, 2007; that Defendant's Rule 26(e)(2) expert disclosures be filed by February 9, 2007; that Plaintiff's rebuttal Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures be filed by February 23, 2007; that discovery be completed, and a status report filed by March 2, 2007; that requests for admissions be submitted by March 9, 2007; that any and all dispositive pretrial motions be filed by April 11, 2007; that responses to dispositive pretrial motions be filed by May 2, 2007; that replies to dispositive pretrial motions, if any, be filed by May 16, 2007; a hearing on all dispositive pretrial motions will be held on June 18, 2007 at 2:00 pm; that the trial currently scheduled for June 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, and 22, 2007 is hereby CONTINUED and that the trial date will be rescheduled at the conclusion of the June 18, 2007 hearing. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 1/19/2007. (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
109 Motion to File Second AMENDED COMPLAINT against U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Morocco, Maria) Modified on 2/5/2007 (elt, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 01/22/2007)
110 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 109 Consent Motion Seeking Leave to File the Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 2/5/07. (Titus, Roger) Modified on 2/5/2007 (elt, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 02/05/2007)
111 Consent MOTION for Other Relief to Enter Consent Decree by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Responses due by 2/26/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Consent Decree)(Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 02/08/2007)

12 of 21

3/19/2008 1:26 PM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?494614008177713-L_1...

02/09/2007 02/13/2007 02/16/2007 02/21/2007 02/22/2007 02/23/2007
02/23/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007 02/27/2007
02/28/2007 03/01/2007

112 ORDER GRANTING 111 Consent Motion to Enter Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 2/9/07. (Titus, Roger) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/5/2007 (elt, Deputy Clerk). Modified on 3/5/2007 (elt, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 02/09/2007)
113 AMENDED ANSWER to 109 Amended Complaint by Lockheed Martin Corporation. (Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
114 MOTION for Leave to File Two Summary Judgment Motions and to Exceed the Page Limitation by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Responses due by 3/5/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
115 RESPONSE to Motion re 114 MOTION for Leave to File Two Summary Judgment Motions and to Exceed the Page Limitation filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Replies due by 3/7/2007. (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 02/21/2007)
116 Supplemental Correspondence re: Proposed Order on Defendant's Motion for Leave (Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
117 ORDER granting 114 Motion for Leave to File Two Summary Judgment Motions; and that each of Defendant's summary judgment motions should not exceed 50 pages, by cumulatively, the motions are not subject to the 50-page limitation under Rule 105(3). Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 2/22/2007. (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
118 MOTION for Summary Judgment Based on Laches and Failure to Conciliate by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Responses due by 3/12/2007 (Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
119 Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Initial Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Laches and Failure to Conciliate by Lockheed Martin Corporation.Responses due by 3/12/2007 (Caputo, Emily) Modified on 2/27/2007 (elt, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 02/23/2007)
120 NOTICE by Lockheed Martin Corporation of Filing of Lengthy Appendix of Exhibits (Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
121 Notice of Service Motion to compel discovery by Lockheed Martin Corporation (Attachments: # 1 Motion to Compel# 2 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel# 3 Text of Proposed Order # 4 Exhibit 1# 5 Exhibit 2# 6 Exhibit 3# 7 Exhibit 4# 8 Exhibit 5)(Caputo, Emily) Modified to reflect Motion to compel on 6/6/2007 (rank, Deputy Clerk). Modified on 6/6/2007 (rank, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 02/27/2007)
Judge Jillyn K. Schulze no longer assigned to case. (ch, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/01/2007)
122 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 118 MOTION for Summary Judgment Based on Laches and Failure to Conciliate by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 3/19/2007 (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 03/01/2007)

13 of 21

3/19/2008 1:26 PM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?494614008177713-L_1...

03/02/2007 03/05/2007 03/11/2007 03/19/2007
03/22/2007 03/27/2007 03/28/2007 03/30/2007 04/02/2007 04/02/2007 04/02/2007 04/02/2007

123 STATUS REPORT by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
124 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 122 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 118 Motion for Summary Judgment. Response due by 3/19/2007; Reply due by 4/2/2007. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 3/5/07. (Titus, Roger) (Entered: 03/05/2007)
125 NOTICE of service of response to motion to compel discovery by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1)(Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 03/11/2007)
126 RESPONSE in Opposition re 119 MOTION for Summary Judgment Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Initial Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Laches and Failure to Conciliate filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Replies due by 4/2/2007. (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 03/19/2007)
127 NOTICE of service of reply to response to motion to compel discovery by Lockheed Martin Corporation (Attachments: # 1 Defendant's Reply in Support of its Motion to Compel Responses to Requet for Admissions)(Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 03/22/2007)
128 Certificate re 121 motion to compel discovery, by Emily Jean Caputo on behalf of Lockheed Martin Corporation (Caputo, Emily) Modified to reflect Local Rule 104.7 on 6/6/2007 (rank, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 03/27/2007)
129 Correcting Earlier Submission (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
130 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Jillyn K. Schulze for discovery. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 3/30/07. (jmw, Chambers) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
131 REPLY to Response to Motion re 118 MOTION for Summary Judgment Based on Laches and Failure to Conciliate filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation. (Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
132 NOTICE by Lockheed Martin Corporation re 131 Reply to Response to Motion Filing Of Lengthy Appendix of Exhibits (RECEIVED 4/2/07 FILED SEPERATELY) (Caputo, Emily) Modified on 4/5/2007 (ch, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 04/02/2007)
133 MOTION to Strike Or Otherwise Disregard Certain Testimony Of Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Designee by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Responses due by 4/19/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support of Motion to Strike# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
134 NOTICE by Lockheed Martin Corporation re 133 MOTION to Strike Or Otherwise Disregard Certain Testimony Of Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Designee MOTION to Strike Or Otherwise Disregard Certain Testimony Of Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Designee Filing of Lengthy Exhibit ( APPENDIX RECEIVED 4/2/07 FILED SEPERATELY) (Caputo, Emily) Modified on 4/5/2007 (ch, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 04/02/2007)

14 of 21

3/19/2008 1:26 PM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?494614008177713-L_1...

04/11/2007 04/11/2007 04/17/2007 04/18/2007
04/19/2007 04/23/2007 04/25/2007
04/27/2007 04/27/2007

135 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment on the Age Discrimination Claims by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Responses due by 4/30/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Second Motion for Summary Jugment on the Age Discrimination Claims)(Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
136 NOTICE by Lockheed Martin Corporation Of Filing Of Lengthy Appendix of Exhibits (Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
137 NOTICE of service of motion to compel discovery by Lockheed Martin Corporation (Attachments: # 1 Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory No. 8 and Interrogatory No. 9 of Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories# 2 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel# 3 Exhibit A# 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 04/17/2007)
138 RESPONSE in Opposition re 133 MOTION to Strike Or Otherwise Disregard Certain Testimony Of Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Designee MOTION to Strike Or Otherwise Disregard Certain Testimony Of Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Designee filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Replies due by 5/2/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice of 30(b)(6) deposition# 2 Exhibit Excerpts from Lage Deposition)(Lawrence, Debra)(SEE DOCKET ENTRY 169) Modified on 6/18/2007 (aap, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 04/18/2007)
139 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Responses due by 5/7/2007 (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
140 NOTICE of service of motion to compel discovery by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
141 ORDER granting 139 Motion for Extension of Time to File Respond to Defendant's Second Motion for Summary Judgment and for Modification of the Scheduling for Oral Argument; that the deadline for Plaintiff's filing of its Opposition to Defendant's Second Motion for Summary Judgment 135 is EXTENDED to May 31, 2007; that the deadline for Defendant's filing of its Reply in support of its Second Motion for Summary Judgment 135 is EXTENDED to June 18, 2006; and the Court will hold a hearing on the Defendant's Second Motion for Summary Judgment 135 on September 10, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. and that the hearing on Defendant's prior Motion for Summary Judgment 118 will be held on June 18, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. as previously scheduled. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 4/24/2007. (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
142 NOTICE of service of response to motion to compel discovery by Lockheed Martin Corporation re 140 Notice of service of motion to compel discovery (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Opposition to Motion to Compel)(McGee, Emmett) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
143 REPLY to Response to Motion re 133 MOTION to Strike Or Otherwise Disregard Certain Testimony Of Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Designee MOTION to Strike Or Otherwise Disregard Certain Testimony Of Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Designee filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix List of Appendices# 2 Appendix A# 3 Appendix B#

15 of 21

3/19/2008 1:26 PM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?494614008177713-L_1...

04/30/2007 05/02/2007 05/02/2007 05/02/2007 05/03/2007 05/08/2007 05/15/2007
05/16/2007 05/17/2007
05/22/2007 05/22/2007 05/23/2007

4 Appendix C# 5 Appendix D# 6 Appendix E# 7 Appendix F# 8 Appendix G# 9 Appendix H# 10 Appendix I)(McGee, Emmett) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
Judge Jillyn K. Schulze no longer assigned to case. (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
Judge Jillyn K. Schulze added. (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
144 [FILED IN ERROR - ATTORNEY WILL REFILE] MOTION to Compel Responses to Defendant's Second Request for Admissions by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Responses due by 5/21/2007 (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4)(McGee, Emmett) Modified on 5/3/2007 (elt, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 05/02/2007)
145 NOTICE of service of motion to compel discovery by Lockheed Martin Corporation (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4)(McGee, Emmett) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
146 NOTICE of service of response to motion to compel discovery by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 137 Notice of service of motion to compel discovery, (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
147 NOTICE of service of reply to response to motion to compel discovery by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 05/08/2007)
148 CERTIFICATE of Counsel re 140 Notice of service of motion to compel discovery pursuant to local rule 104.7 by Maria Luisa Morocco on behalf of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Morocco, Maria) Modified on 6/6/2007 (rank, Deputy Clerk). Modified on 7/12/2007 (elt, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 05/15/2007)
149 NOTICE of service of response to motion to compel discovery by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1)(Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 05/16/2007)
150 NOTICE of service of reply to response to motion to compel discovery by Lockheed Martin Corporation re 146 Notice of service of response to motion to compel discovery Regarding Plaintiff's Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 9 of Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories (Attachments: # 1 # 2 Exhibit 1)(Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
151 ORDER cancelling the pre-trial conference previously scheduled for 5/31/07 at 5:00 p.m.. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 5/22/07. (rank, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/22/2007)
152 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 6/8/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 05/22/2007)
153 CERTIFICATE of Counsel re 137 Notice of service of motion to compel discovery, re Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 9 of Defendant's First Set of Interrogatorires by Emily Jean Caputo on behalf of Lockheed Martin Corporation (Caputo, Emily) Modified on 6/6/2007 (rank, Deputy Clerk). Modified on 7/12/2007 (elt, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 05/23/2007)

16 of 21

3/19/2008 1:26 PM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?494614008177713-L_1...

05/23/2007 05/29/2007
06/04/2007 06/05/2007 06/06/2007 06/07/2007 06/08/2007
06/08/2007 06/11/2007 06/11/2007 06/11/2007 06/11/2007

154 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 152 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 135 Second Motion for Summary Judgment. Response due by 6/7/2007; Reply due by 7/9/2007. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 5/23/07. (Titus, Roger) (Entered: 05/23/2007)
155 NOTICE of service of reply to response to motion to compel discovery by Lockheed Martin Corporation re 145 Notice of service of motion to compel discovery regarding Responses to Defendant's Second Request for Admissions (Attachments: # 1 Reply in Support of Motion to Compel# 2 Exhibit 1)(Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
156 CERTIFICATE of Counsel re 145 Notice of service of motion to compel discovery Regarding Responses to Defendant's Second Request for Admissions by Emily Jean Caputo on behalf of Lockheed Martin Corporation (Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 06/04/2007)
157 NOTICE by Lockheed Martin Corporation Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance of Emily J. Caputo (Caputo, Emily) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
158 PAPERLESS ORDER APPROVING 157 Notice Withdrawing the Appearance of Emily J. Caputo as counsel for Defendant. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 6/6/07. (Titus, Roger) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
159 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in response to defendant's second motion for summary judgment by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 6/25/2007 (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 table of contents)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
160 ORDER denying 121 Notice of Service Motion to compel discovery; 128 Certificate re 121 motion to compel discovery; 145 NOTICE of service of motion to compel discovery 156 CERTIFICATE of Counsel re 145 Notice of service of motion to compel discovery Regarding Responses to Defendant's Second Request for Admissions. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 6/8/07. (aap, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
161 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Lengthy Exhibit by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 6/25/2007 (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
162 ORDER scheduling telephone motions hearing for June 25, 2007 at 3:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Jillyn K. Schulze on 06/11/2007. (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
163 NOTICE of Appearance by Jill Schultz Distler on behalf of Lockheed Martin Corporation (Distler, Jill) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
164 MOTION to Seal by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 6/28/2007 (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
165 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 161 Motion for Extension of Time to File Lengthy Exhibit. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 6/11/07. (Titus, Roger) (Entered: 06/11/2007)

17 of 21

3/19/2008 1:26 PM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?494614008177713-L_1...

06/12/2007 06/14/2007 06/14/2007 06/15/2007 06/18/2007
06/19/2007
06/21/2007 06/25/2007
06/25/2007

166 MOTION to Strike Portions of Turner Affidavit by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 6/29/2007 (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 06/12/2007)
167 MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER granting re 159 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages; ORDERED that Plaintiff's Memorandum is deemed FILED; further ORDERED that Defendant is granted leave to file a reply, not to exceed 38 pages, on or before July 9, 2007. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 6/14/07. (aap, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
168 RESPONSE to Motion re 135 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment on the Age Discrimination Claims filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Replies due by 6/28/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Table of Contents)(Deemed Filed Per Order filed 6/14/07)(aap, Deputy Clerk) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/6/2007 (ch, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 06/14/2007)
169 ORDER granting 164 Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 6/14/07. (aap, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
Motion Hearing held on 6/18/2007 re 135 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment on the Age Discrimination Claims filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation, and 133 MOTION to Strike Or Otherwise Disregard Certain Testimony Of Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Designee MOTION to Strike Or Otherwise Disregard Certain Testimony Of Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Designee filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation held before Judge Roger W Titus. (Court Reporter: T. Dunlap) (hbm, Courtroom Deputy Clerk)(Written order to be entered by the Court) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
170 ORDER denying 133 Motion to Strike or Otherwise Disregard Certain Testimony of Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Designee; that Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a memorandum on or before June 29, 2007, not to exceed ten pages, setting forth its position as to whether the Court should impose sanctions on the Defendant, and, if so, in what amount; and that Defendant is DIRECTED to file a response to Plaintiff's memorandum, not to exceed ten pages, on or before July 9, 2007. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 06/19/2007. (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/19/2007)
171 ORDER denying as moot 76 Motion in Limine; denying as moot 77 Motion in Limine; denying as moot 81 Motion in Limine; denying as moot 96 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 06/20/2007. (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/21/2007)
172 RESPONSE in Opposition re 166 MOTION to Strike Portions of Turner Affidavit filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation.Replies due by 7/9/2007. (Attachments: # 1 List of Exhibits# 2 Exhibit Excerpt from Edward Bender Deposition# 3 Exhibit Excerpt from Craig Poyner Deposition# 4 Exhibit Excerpt from Wayne Rentfro Deposition# 5 Exhibit Affidavit of Thomas Turner# 6 Exhibit Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition# 7 Exhibit Second Request for Production of Documents)(Distler, Jill) (Entered: 06/25/2007)
173 Telephone Conference held on 6/25/2007 held before Judge Jillyn K. Schulze. (Court Reporter N/A.) (jmw, Chambers) (Entered: 06/25/2007)

18 of 21

3/19/2008 1:26 PM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?494614008177713-L_1...

06/26/2007
06/28/2007 06/28/2007 07/02/2007 07/05/2007 07/06/2007 07/06/2007 07/06/2007 07/09/2007
07/09/2007 07/10/2007 07/11/2007

174 Letter/ORDER GRANTING Defendant's Motion as to relief requested during telephone hearing held June 25, 2007; Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED as to the 1999 Holman notes, which are to be produced within ten days. Signed by Judge Jillyn K. Schulze on 6/26/07. (ch, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 6/26/2007 (ch, Deputy Clerk)(c/m to Gwendolyn Young Reams). (Entered: 06/26/2007)
175 Consent MOTION to Amend/Correct /remove personal identifiers from Ex. 12A to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Second Summary Judgment Motion by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 7/16/2007 (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
176 Correspondence re: Response to the Court's Order of June 19, 2007 (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
Judge Jillyn K. Schulze no longer assigned to case. (ch, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/02/2007)
177 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 175 Consent Motion to Substitute a Redacted Version of Exhibit 12A. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 7/5/07. (Titus, Roger) (Entered: 07/05/2007)
178 RESPONSE re 176 Miscellaneous Correspondence in Response to the Court's Order of June 19, 2007 filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Excerpt from Lage Deposition)(Distler, Jill) (Entered: 07/06/2007)
179 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Gwendolyn Young Reams (Attachments: # 1 Letter to Counsel signed by Judge Schulze on 6/26/07) (ch, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/06/2007)
180 REPLY to Response to Motion re 166 MOTION to Strike Portions of Turner Affidavit filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 07/06/2007)
181 REPLY to Response to Motion re 135 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment on the Age Discrimination Claims filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 List of Appendices# 2 Appendix 1 - Affidavit of Kathryn Y. Holman# 3 Appendix 2 - Notice of Filing of Lengthy Exhibit# 4 Appendix 3 Affidavit of Thomas Turner# 5 Appendix 4 - Farmer Deposition Exhibit# 6 Appendix 5 - Excerpts from Claimants' Deposition Testimony# 7 Notice of Filing of Documents Under Seal)(Distler, Jill) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
182 MOTION to Seal by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Responses due by 7/26/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Distler, Jill) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
183 Memorandum/ORDER indicating Court will not impose sanctions in conjunction with Defendant's Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 7/9/07. (ch, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 7/10/2007 (ch, Deputy Clerk). (c/m to Gwendolyn Young Reams) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
184 ORDER granting 182 Motion to Seal; ORDERED that the Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain under seal Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4 to Defendant's Motion to File Materials Under Seal [Paper 182] pursuant Local Rule 105.11. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 7/11/07. (aap, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/11/2007)

19 of 21

3/19/2008 1:26 PM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?494614008177713-L_1...

09/07/2007
09/14/2007 09/14/2007 10/03/2007 10/04/2007
10/12/2007
10/12/2007 10/29/2007 12/17/2007 03/03/2008 03/07/2008

185 Memorandum/Order rescheduling the hearing on Defendant's Second Motion for Summary Judgment, previously scheduled for September 10, 2007 is RESCHEDULED to October 4, 2007 at 3:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 9/6/07. (aap, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
186 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 09/13/2007. (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
187 ORDER denying 118 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 09/13/2007. (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
188 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 6/18/07 before Judge Roger W. Titus. Court Reporter: Tracy Rae Dunlap. (Filed Seperately) (aap, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
189 Motion Hearing held on 10/4/2007 re 135 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment on the Age Discrimination Claims filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation held before Judge Roger W Titus. (Court Reporter Marshall 2C) (esp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/04/2007)
190 ORDER denying 135 Second Motion for Summary Judgment on Age Discrimination; granting 166 Motion to Strike Portions of the Thomas Turner Affidavit. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 10/9/07. (aap, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/12/2007)
191 MEMORANDUM/ORDER confirming schedules in case. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 10/9/07. (aap, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/12/2007)
192 TRANSCRIPT of Motions Hearing held on 10/4/07 before Judge Roger W. Titus. Court Reporter: Linda C. Marshall. (ch, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/29/2007 (ch, Deputy Clerk). (Filed Separately) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
193 Order scheduling a follow-up settlement conference for February 22, 2008 10:00 a.m. to be held in chambers(Room 355A). Signed by Judge William Connelly on 12/17/07. (aap, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
194 ORDER cancelling telephone status conference on March 4, 2008.. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 03/03/2008. (ads, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/04/2008)
195 ORDER DISMISSING case with each party to bear its own costs unless otherwise agreed without prejudice to the right of a party to move for good cause within 90 days to reopen this action if settlement is not consummated. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 3/7/2008. (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/07/2008)

20 of 21

PACER Login:
Description:

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
03/19/2008 14:25:56

wu0079 Client Code: eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

8:05-cv-00287-RWT

3/19/2008 1:26 PM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2) Billable Pages: 16

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?494614008177713-L_1...

Cost:

1.28

21 of 21

3/19/2008 1:26 PM

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOUTHERN DIVISION

)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

10 S. Howard Street, 3rd Floor

)

Baltimore, MD 21201

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

LOCKHEED MARTIN

)

GLOBAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.

)

6801 Rockledge Dr.

)

Bethesda, MD 20817

)

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action No. 05-CV-287-RWT
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“the ADEA”),

to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of age and to provide appropriate

relief to Jeffrey Kurland and to individuals similarly situated to him. The Commission

alleges that Defendant Lockheed Martin Global Telecommunications, Inc. (“LMGT”),

terminated Mr. Kurland and other employees in the LMGT COMSAT Mobile

Communications Division because of their age in approximately October 2000.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331,

1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to:

Sections 4(d) and 7(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sections 623(d) and 626(b) (the “ADEA”), which incorporates by reference Sections 16(c) and 17 of the FLSA, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sections 216(c) and 217.

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within

the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission" or “EEOC”), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of the ADEA. 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Lockheed Martin Global Telecommunications has continuously been a Delaware corporation, doing business in the State of Maryland and the City of Bethesda, and continuously had at least 20 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Lockheed Martin Global Telecommunications has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 11(b), (g) and (h) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 630 (b), (g) and (h). STATEMENT OF CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT LOCKHEED MARTIN GLOBAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FOR DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF THE ADEA 6. Through the reduction in force that occurred in approximately October 2000 in the COMSAT Mobile Communications Division, Defendant Lockheed Martin Global Telecommunications has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of section 4(a) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 623 (a)(1). The practices include discharging Jeffrey Kurland, then age 53, and similarly situated individuals in the COMSAT Mobile Communications Division, identified in Appendix A, because of age. 7. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 6 above has been
2

to deprive Jeffrey Kurland and similarly situated individuals formerly employed in the COMSAT Mobile Communications Division of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of age.
8. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 6 above were willful.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Lockheed Martin Global Telecommunications, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of age against individuals 40 years of age and older; B. Order Defendant Lockheed Martin Global Telecommunications, to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for individuals 40 years of age and older, and which eradicate the effects of past and present unlawful employment practices; C. Grant a judgment requiring Defendant Lockheed Martin Global Telecommunications to pay appropriate back wages in an amount to be determined at trial and prejudgment interest to the persons identified in Attachment A; D. Grant a judgment requiring Defendant Lockheed Martin Global Telecommunications to pay liquidated damages, in an amount equal to back wages, to the persons identified in Attachment A; E. Order Defendant Lockheed Martin Global Telecommunications, to make whole all individuals identified in Attachment A by providing the appropriate relief necessary to eradicate the effects of the unlawful terminations complained of above, including but not
3

limited to rightful place reinstatement and/or front pay;
F. Grant such further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper in
the public interest;
G. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
Respectfully submitted,
RONALD S. COOPER
General Counsel
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
_______/s/_________ JACQUELINE MCNAIR Regional Attorney (signed by Maria Morocco with permission of Jacqueline McNair)
______/s/___________ DEBRA M. LAWRENCE Supervisory Trial Attorney (signed by Maria Morocco with permission of Debra Lawrence)
_______/s/___________ MARIA LUISA MOROCCO Trial Attorney Bar No. 24357
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
4