Opinion ID: 753578
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Young's Claim

Text: 15 Lockheed offered evidence that Young's accesses were revoked in 1993 because she was terminated in accordance with Lockheed's standard policies and practices. Young has not presented any evidence suggesting that Lockheed's explanation for the revocation of her accesses following her termination was pretextual. 16 With regard to Young's difficulties regaining her access to the V program, Lockheed offered evidence that at the time of her application, the V program was only processing limited numbers of access applications pursuant to instructions from the government. Young's manager Abby Rothman did not submit a program access request (PAR) on her behalf because the CBA required Rothman to submit PAR's for other officers with more seniority. Young has failed to create a genuine issue of fact as to whether this explanation is pretextual. Her vague recollection of other employees' employment statuses is insufficient to undermine Lockheed's evidence that the CBA mandated that these officers precede Young in getting accesses when accesses were limited. 17 Young offered general and conclusory evidence that Lockheed had the means and the opportunity to delay or deny accesses without ever submitting paperwork to the government. Given the presence of adverse information in Young's record, none of this evidence raises a genuine issue of fact regarding Lockheed's motives. Summary judgment on Young's claim was proper.