LOCKHEED MARTIN SHOOTING FOR A CRISIS ANALYSIS

Lockheed Martin Shooting for a crisis analysis class

Lockheed Martin Shooting Case

Introduction

Case analysis

In this “reverse” discrimination case Anthony Mitten, a white male, claims that his former employer, Lockheed-Martin Aeronautics Company (“Lockheed”), discriminated against him on account of his race in terminating his employment. The district court granted Lockheed summary judgment, and Mitten appealed. Our task, consequently, is to determine whether the district court misapplied the summary judgment standard to the evidence presented. Holding that it did, we vacate the district court's judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.

Victims of the incident

Six people killed in the shooting.

DeLois Bailey, 53, succumbed to her wounds on July 15

Sam Cockrell, 46, of Meridian, Mississippi

Micky Fitzgerald, 45, of Little Rock, Mississippi

Lynette McCall, 47, of Cuba, Alabama

Charles J. Miller, 58, of Meridian, Mississippi

Thomas Willis, 57, of Lisman, Alabama

The injured were Brad Bynum, 29, Steve Cobb, 46, Al Collier, 49, Brenda Dubose, 55, Chuck McReynolds, 62, Henry Odom, 57, Charles Scott, 65 and Randy Wright, 55.

Background of the case

Lockheed prohibits workplace discrimination and harassment under a workplace-conduct rule it calls its “zero tolerance policy.” The zero-tolerance policy provides notice to employees that Lockheed's department of Human Resources (“HR”) will discipline anyone who, at work, engages in an act of discriminatory “harassment based on a legally protected status such as race (Six Dead In Mississippi Massacre, 2003). Although, when it has the effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.” This includes using Lockheed email accounts “in ways that are disruptive, abusive, obscene, or degrading, or offensive to others,” such as the distribution or “transmission of ethnic slurs or racial comments.” (Emphasis added). HR continually learns of violations of the zero-tolerance policy through employees, as Lockheed requires its employees to aid HR in policing the workplace-conduct rule. The expectations placed on employees vary based on their employment rank. Employees having no supervisory responsibilities, for instance, must ensure only their own compliance with the policy and inform their supervisors or HR whenever they discover a violation. Those with supervisory responsibilities (“supervisors”), however; must be more proactive, including “reporting promptly to HR any act of harassment which is personally witnessed or suspected or reported by an employee.” Once HR learns of a possible infraction of the zero-tolerance policy, it initiates an investigation. If its investigation concludes that an employee breached the zero-tolerance policy, HR, through an empanelled disciplinary review committee, fashions discipline, up to and including termination.

On March 29, 2005, Mitten, then a supervisor at Lockheed's plant in Marietta, Georgia, received a racially insensitive “joke” email. The email, entitled “Top Ten Reasons Why There are No Black NASCAR Drivers” (the “NASCAR email”), featured a top-ten list of derogatory stereotypes, all of which portrayed black people as criminals, pimps, and gang members. Two of the list's entries, as illustration, claimed there are no blacks in NASCAR racing because a “pistol will not stay under the front seat” and because there ...