1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Stacy Wallace, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Lockheed Martin Corporation, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-18-0463-PHX-DGC 

ORDER 

 On May 14, 2019, the Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of 

Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation (“LMC”). Doc. 34. Plaintiff Stacy Wallace has 

now filed a motion to reconsider her termination-related claims for interference and 

retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). Doc. 35. At the Court’s 

request, LMC filed a response. Doc. 42. The Court will correct a factual error and 

otherwise deny the motion. 

I. Reconsideration Standard. 

 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare 

circumstances. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV-05-4177-PHX-MHM, 2008 WL 1776502, at 

*2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2008). Such motions should be denied “absent a showing of manifest 

error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its 

attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see also United Nat’l Ins. 

Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009). 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

II. Discussion. 

1. Factual Error. 

Wallace argues that the Court erred in stating that she did not apply for nonleadership positions outside Luke Air Force Base. Wallace is correct. The Court did state 

that Wallace did not apply for such positions (Doc. 34 at 4), and she has pointed to evidence 

in the record that she did in fact apply (Doc. 35 at 1-2). LMC concedes that this error was 

included in its briefing, but argues that the error did not affect the Court’s decision. 

Doc. 42 at 4. 

The Court ruled that LMC did not violate the FMLA when it failed to reinstate 

Wallace and terminated her employment. This ruling was based on the fact that LMC 

presented legitimate reasons for her termination. Doc. 34 at 7. Specifically, LMC 

presented undisputed evidence that Wallace violated LMC’s ethics policies when she had 

inappropriate affairs with her supervisor and a client before she took FMLA leave. Id. 

These ethics violations were established through an internal LMC investigation, and 

Wallace admits the conduct underlying the violations. Id. Thus, even though Wallace’s 

right to FMLA leave and LMC’s failure to reinstate her may have created a prima facie 

case of an FMLA violation, see Sanders v. City of Newport, 657 F.3d 772, 778 (9th Cir. 

2011), LMC’s undisputed legitimate reasons for terminating her overcame her prima facie 

case and entitled LMC to summary judgment on this claim, id. at 780-81 (the FMLA 

requires that an employer reinstate an employee after taking leave only so long as the 

employee would still be employed in the position had she not taken FMLA leave); see also 

Valtierra v. Medtronic Inc., 232 F. Supp. 3d 1117, 1128 (D. Ariz. 2017) (finding temporal 

proximity insufficient to support FMLA interference claim in the face of misconduct 

evidence); Fleming v. IASIS Healthcare Corp., 151 F. Supp. 3d 1043, 1055 (D. Ariz. 2015) 

(finding that even after requesting FMLA leave an employee can be discharged for 

misconduct in violation of company policies). 

The Court did not base its decision on the incorrect fact that Wallace failed to apply 

for non-leadership positions at locations other than Luke Air Force Base. Wallace suggests 
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

that her applications and rejections somehow show that her termination was inappropriate, 

but the evidence she submitted shows only that she applied for other positions; it does not 

show that she was qualified for the positions or why she was not hired. Doc. 23-2 at 8-15. 

Wallace does state in her affidavit that “part of the problem” was that LMC placed a 

negative report against her security clearance (Doc. 23-1 at 6), but she does not dispute that 

the negative report resulted from the ethics violations, the bases for which Wallace admits. 

The Court will grant the motion for reconsideration to the extent that it will correct 

the factual error contained in its previous order – Wallace did apply for non-leadership 

positions at locations other than Luke Air Force Base. But this corrected fact does not alter 

the Court’s conclusion that LMC provided legitimate, undisputed reasons for terminating 

her employment. The Court therefore will deny the motion to the extent it seeks a different 

outcome on summary judgment.1

2. Newly Discovered Evidence. 

Wallace next argues that an LMC letter to the EEOC shows that its ethics 

investigation “made no final conclusion” regarding her retracted sexual assault allegations 

against an LMC client. Doc. 35 at 2. She therefore asserts that this allegation could not 

have served as a legitimate basis for her termination, contrary to LMC’s position on 

summary judgment. Id. at 4. 

The Court did not find in its previous order that the LMC ethics investigation found 

a violation based on the false rape accusation. Rather, it found that the ethics investigation 

based its violation finding on Wallace’s two inappropriate affairs. See Doc. 34 at 3 (“In 

early March, the Ethics Department found that the allegations regarding Wallace’s 

romantic relationships with Crowley and the LMC client were true and violated LMC 

policy.”). The Court did discuss the false rape allegation and the fact that it was made by 

Wallace and then retracted. Id. at 7. It noted that Wallace does not dispute these facts, and 

 1

 Wallace also argues that “LMC carefully curated a timeline to ‘outlast’ the Ninth 

Circuit’s usual timeframe for temporal proximity analysis.” Doc. 35 at 4. This is a new 

argument that is not proper on a motion for reconsideration. See Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 

F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). 
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

found them also to be a legitimate basis for her termination. Id. To the extent Wallace 

now suggests that the false allegation could not constitute a legitimate basis for her 

termination because it was never included in the formal findings of the ethics investigation, 

the Court does not agree. Wallace does not dispute that she made the false allegation. Id. 

But even if the false allegation is disregarded, LMC had two other established ethics 

violations – Wallace’s two affairs – as legitimate, undisputed reasons for her termination. 

This issue provides no basis for reconsideration. 

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 35) is granted in part and denied in part

as set forth above. 

 Dated this 18th day of June, 2019.