Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
December 14, 2011, Decided; December 14, 2011, Filed
Civil No. 08-6292 (RBK/AMD)
KUGLER, United States District Judge:
Before the Court is an employment discrimination class action suit. Plaintiffs assert individual claims for gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"). Plaintiffs also assert Title VII and NJLAD class action gender discrimination claims on behalf of a putative class of women employed by Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation ("Lockheed"). The core of Plaintiffs' claims is that certain [*2] of Lockheed's company-wide policies and practices have a disparate impact on female employees' compensation and advancement.
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Lockheed's motion to deny class certification (Doc. No. 420). Also before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a sur-reply (Doc. No. 433). For the reasons discussed below, this Court grants Lockheed's motion to deny class certification. In addition, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a sur-reply for failure to file a supporting brief pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). 1
This is a class action labor discrimination suit [*3] against Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation, which "is the largest information technology services supplier to the United States government." Compl. ¶ 54. Plaintiff asserts individual and class action claims for gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991, as amended, 42. U.S.C. §2000e et seq. Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint defines the putative class as "[a]ll persons who are female and who were, are, or will be employed by [Defendant] in 'E' or 'L' designated positions as levels 3, 4, 5, or 6 in the United States of America from March 21, 2007 through the date of the final disposition of this action . . . ." Third Am. Compl. ¶ 34. Plaintiff also asserts individual and class action claims under the NJLAD on behalf of a proposed subclass of plaintiffs employed by Lockheed in the State of New Jersey. In addition to their class claims, the three individual class representatives assert individual retaliation claims under both Title VII and the NJLAD.
Plaintiffs' class action claims allege that Lockheed "discriminates against its salaried female employees by advancing male employees more quickly than equally or more qualified female employees through [*4] middle management and into upper management level positions, and discriminates in compensation to these female employees, including with respect to pay grade, annual and promotional increases, merit pay increases and bonuses." Third Am. Compl. ¶ 1. Plaintiffs allege that disparities between male and female employees "are the result of policies and practices that purposefully discriminate against women." Id. Plaintiff claims that company-wide minimum criteria for all director and officer-level positions are nominal and have the effect of eliminating all but subjective criteria with respect to education and experience, which permits decision-makers to act in a discriminatory manner. Plaintiffs further claim that although all available lower-level positions are posted on the company's intranet, Lockheed has a company-wide policy that available director and officer positions are not to be posted on the intranet. Thus, the only means of learning about those open positions is by word of mouth, which purportedly has a disparate impact on female employees.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143657 *; 2011 WL 6256978
CAROL BELL, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, Defendant.
Notice: NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Subsequent History: Costs and fees proceeding at, Objection overruled by, Motion granted by Bell v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67002 (D.N.J., May 14, 2012)
Prior History: Bell v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155085 (D.N.J., Oct. 21, 2011)
class certification, Plaintiffs', policies, proposed class, disparate impact, certification, individualized, monetary, female employee, statistical, discovery, class action, injunctive, promotion, positions, damages, declaratory relief, discriminatory, discretionary, disparities, employees, hiring, posted, gender discrimination, plaintiff's claim, common question, class member, discriminated, predominate, anecdotal