Opinion ID: 753578
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hurskin

Text: 18 Lockheed offered evidence that Hurskin's accesses were revoked in 1992 because the government had informed Lockheed that Hurskin did not meet the criteria for security accesses. Hurskin has presented no evidence indicating that the revocation of his security accesses in 1992 was based on anything other than the government's letter. 19 With regard to Hurskin's difficulties regaining access to secured programs, Lockheed offered evidence that Hurskin's record contained adverse information, including a reckless driving conviction and financial difficulties, and that Hurskin had failed to complete all of the required paperwork for the K program. Lockheed also offered evidence that in November 1995, Abby Rothman submitted a letter to the K program security office attesting to Hurskin's usefulness to the program. 20 With respect to his difficulties getting re-accessed, Hurskin has only presented general evidence regarding Lockheed managers' ability to interfere with the accessing process and evidence of racism in Lockheed's management ranks. Given the presence of adverse information in Hurskin's record, this evidence is insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact regarding the processing of Hurskin's access requests. The district court's decision to grant summary judgment on Hurskin's FEHA claim was therefore proper.