Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Ross v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

Ross v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

United States District Court for the District of Columbia

July 28, 2017, Decided; July 28, 2017, Filed

No. 16-cv-2508 (KBJ)

Opinion

 [*178]  MEMORANDUM OPINION

Named Plaintiffs Vernon Ross and Debra Josey ("Plaintiffs") allege that Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation ("Lockheed") has "engaged in a pattern or practice of employment discrimination" that is "manifest[] in Lockheed Martin's performance appraisal system." (Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶ 11.) According to Ross and Josey, Lockheed's annual employee performance review process is "flawed in both design and implementation" (id.) because "African-American non-represented, salaried employees below the level of Vice President have received lower overall ratings on their annual performance reviews as compared to similarly situated white employees" (id. ¶ 15), and the lower ratings have, in turn, resulted in "lower salaries, raises, [and] bonuses, [lower] long term incentive awards, fewer promotions, [**2]  and a lower retention rate" for African Americans at Lockheed (id. ¶ 67). Plaintiffs' three-count complaint claims that Lockheed's performance review process has been systemically injurious in a manner that amounts to both intentional race discrimination (see id. ¶¶ 65-68 (Count I)) and disparate impact race discrimination (see id. ¶¶ 70-73 (Count II)). Plaintiff Ross further contends, solely on his own behalf, that Lockheed retaliated against him "for filing a Charge of Discrimination . . . and/or complaining to senior executives at the Company of racial discrimination faced by him and other African-American employees." (Id. ¶ 78 (Count III).)

Critically, Ross and Josey seek to prosecute the race discrimination claims on behalf of the following class of plaintiffs:

[all] salaried non-represented African-American employees below the level of Vice President who received at least one performance evaluation between January 1, 2013 and February 29, 2016, with an overall rating below 'significantly exceeded commitments' while employed at Lockheed Martin.

(Id. ¶ 1.) The complaint contends that the discrimination claims are susceptible to class-action treatment because, under Lockheed's performance [**3]  review process, there is an "absence of measurable indicators" of achievement, which has allegedly "resulted in inadequate safeguards against bias in the assessment of African American employees." (Id. ¶ 18; see also id. ¶ 21 (resting the complaint's systemic discrimination allegations on the fact that "[m]anagers' comments on employee performance have not consistently relied on specific, measurable, time-sensitive measures of employees' performance" and "[a]s a result, similar or even identical performance could garner different ratings under different supervisors").)

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

267 F. Supp. 3d 174 *; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118373 **

VERNON ROSS and DEBRA JOSEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, P laintiffs, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP., Defendant.

Subsequent History: Motion denied by Josey v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127789 (D.D.C., July 21, 2020)

CORE TERMS

class member, employees, settlement, class action, settlement agreement, ratings, proposed settlement, appraisal, Plaintiffs', commonality, tier, disparate impact, preliminary approval, performance review, disparity, alleges, race discrimination, notice, promotions, discriminatory, certification, claim form, courts, calibration, sessions, legal claim, companywide, decisions, quotation, marks

Labor & Employment Law, Disparate Treatment, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Disparate Impact, Statistical Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Burden Shifting, Defenses, Business Necessity & Job Relatedness, Civil Procedure, Special Proceedings, Class Actions, Compromise & Settlement, Prerequisites for Class Action, Prerequisites for Class Action, Adequacy of Representation, Commonality, Typicality, Numerosity, Certification of Classes, Maintainability, Predominance, Superiority, Class Members, Named Members, Judicial Discretion, Discrimination, Actionable Discrimination, Employment Practices, Demotions & Promotions, Adverse Employment Actions, Discharges & Failures to Hire