Wallace v. Lockheed Martin Corporation

Filing 44

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 35 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting in part and denying in part 35 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 6/18/2019.(DGC, nvo)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Stacy Wallace,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-18-0463-PHX-DGC

Lockheed Martin Corporation,

13

Defendant.

14
15
16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

otherwise deny the motion.

22

I.

Reconsideration Standard.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

II.

Discussion.

2

1.

3

Wallace argues that the Court erred in stating that she did not apply for non-

4

leadership positions outside Luke Air Force Base. Wallace is correct. The Court did state

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

Doc. 42 at 4.

Factual Error.

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

misconduct in violation of company policies).

27

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

28

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

-2-

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

outcome on summary judgment.1

13

2.

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

summary judgment. Id. at 4.

Newly Discovered Evidence.

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26
1

27
28

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).
-3-

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

This issue provides no basis for reconsideration.

8
9
10

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.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-