IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
WENDY J. DEAN,
Plaintiff,
vs. CASE NO.
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION
d/b/a LOCKHEED MARTIN MISSILES &
SPACE OPERATIONS,
Defendant.
___________________________/
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff, WENDY DEAN, by and through her undersigned counsel, sues Defendant, LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION d/b/a “LOCKHEED MARTIN MISSILES & SPACE OPERATIONS” (hereinafter referred to as “LOCKHEED”), and alleges as follows:
1. This is an action for damages that exceed $15,000.00, exclusive of costs, interest, and attorney’s fees.
2. The unlawful employment practices alleged below were committed within Brevard County, Florida.
3. Plaintiff is a female who resides in Orange County, Florida, but who at all times material herein resided in Brevard County, Florida.
4. Defendant Lockheed is a Maryland corporation, registered and doing business in the State of Florida.
5. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorney and agreed to pay him a reasonable fee.
6. Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies prior to bringing this action.
7. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent prior to bringing this action.
8. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Lockheed in the position of Test Base Material Control Clerk at its Cape Canaveral, Florida facility.
9. Plaintiff was hired on or about May 4, 1999 by Lockheed.
10. Plaintiff was constructively discharged by Defendant Lockheed on or about April 16, 2001.
COUNT I
SEXUAL HARASSMENT
STATE CLAIM
11. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 10 of this Complaint as if set forth in full herein.
12. This action is brought pursuant to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
13. Plaintiff filed a claim with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (see attached composite Exhibit A) regarding the subject matter of this Complaint (sexual harassment and retaliation), and more than one hundred eighty (180) days have passed since the filing of said charge of discrimination.
14. Plaintiff, a female, while employed by Defendant Lockheed, has been subjected to sexual harassment by her supervisor.
15. The sexual harassment of Plaintiff by her supervisor, Lockheed’s employee, consisted of: constant and relentless pressure to engage in a romantic, sexual relationship; unwanted and unsolicited physical touching of Plaintiff; “hovering” (leaning) over Plaintiff while she was at work; unprecedented personal attention and personal training of Plaintiff in her job functions (such attention was never directed toward, nor was such training ever offered to other employees, female or male); Plaintiff being asked out on dates by her supervisor, which she always refused; stalking of Plaintiff by her supervisor as she would come and go to and from work and lunch breaks, the rest room, and the employee parking lot; demonstrated jealousy by Plaintiff’s supervisor whenever she would speak with other co-workers; unsolicited phone calls and personal intrusions by Plaintiff’s supervisor to Plaintiff at home and other places away from work; repeated invitations by Plaintiff’s supervisor to go on dates, despite Plaintiff’s insistence that she was not interested.
16. Furthermore, after Plaintiff’s clear indications to her supervisor that she was not interested in any kind of relationship with him, Plaintiff was transferred by the supervisor to another department with different job tasks for which she had not been, nor ever was trained. Whenever she asked her supervisor for assistance in learning how to do her new job, he replied “figure it out yourself”. The supervisor began commenting to other employees, in front of Plaintiff, how “lazy” she was, and how she “wouldn’t work”.
17. Plaintiff repeatedly asked the perpetrator of the sexual harassment to cease his actions, and when he did not cease the harassment, Plaintiff complained of the sexual harassment by her supervisor to her supervisor’s supervisor. The perpetrator’s supervisor advised Plaintiff that he saw what was going on, and would move Plaintiff to another department to make it look like it was a personnel move which would be part of a “cross training” program. Shortly after discussing the sexual harassment with the Lockheed manager, another Lockheed manager, who had not been present during the discussion, saw a co-worker tap Plaintiff on the shoulder and remarked, “[A]re you going to consider that sexual harassment too?” Plaintiff was not transferred as she had been promised.
18. Plaintiff then advised her Union President that she had been sexually harassed by her supervisor. The Union President and Business Representative went to see Lockheed’s local Director of Human Resources, who told them “These females should have known better. They should have come to me before going to their supervisor.” Lockheed’s Human Resources Director then threw a sexual harassment pamphlet at Plaintiff’s Union President, and refused to move Plaintiff away from the perpetrator allegedly because the perpetrator’s supervisor felt it would “look bad” for him if Plaintiff transferred out of his department after reporting sexual harassment. Plaintiff also spoke with a Lockheed Human Resources representative about the harassment by her supervisor.
19. Frustrated that Lockheed took no action in regard to her complaint of sexual harassment, Plaintiff went to speak with the union attorney regarding the matter. It was only after the union attorney contacted Lockheed that Plaintiff was transferred to another department and away from the perpetrator.
20. After Plaintiff reported the sexual harassment described herein, she was interviewed by a Lockheed Corporate Investigator of Ethics and Business Conduct, with her Union President in attendance. The investigator was highly confrontational, disbelieving, and insinuated that Plaintiff was lying. At one point, the investigator demanded of Plaintiff, “[d]idn’t he apologize to you? Isn’t that good enough?” Plaintiff’s Union President ended the meeting due to the abusive nature of the investigator’s method of questioning and obvious intent to intimidate and harass Plaintiff.
21. Lockheed, thus apprised of the sexual harassment of Plaintiff by her supervisor, failed to take any remedial action to correct the problem until intervention by the union attorney. Lockheed failed to discipline the perpetrator in any fashion. Lockheed failed to conduct a timely or thorough investigation in regard to Plaintiff’s complaint of sexual harassment. Plaintiff submitted her statement in regard to the harassment in July 2000, and was only informed of the “findings” in regard to Lockheed’s “investigation” into her complaint in January 2001. Lockheed called Plaintiff’s charges “unsubstantiated”.
22. By failing to discipline the perpetrator of the sexual harassment described herein, delaying moving Plaintiff away from the perpetrator, and failing to conduct a timely and thorough investigation, Lockheed condoned sexual harassment in the workplace, the nature of which action violates Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
23. Plaintiff did not encourage, welcome or consent to the harassment described in this complaint and Lockheed had actual and constructive notice of the sexual harassment described in this Complaint because such harassment was pervasive and obvious and was in fact perpetrated by Lockheed supervisors and employees, including management employees.
24. As a result of the sexual harassment suffered by Plaintiff, as described herein, Plaintiff suffered: loss of wages, in the form of overtime opportunities forfeited as a result of fears of working alone with her supervisor, due to his sexual harassment of Plaintiff; damages for mental anguish and emotional distress, loss of dignity and other damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant, for all damages to which she may be entitled, including, without limitation:
A. Back pay and lost benefits including tuition reimbursement
B. Front pay and future lost benefits including tuition reimbursement
C. Damages for mental anguish
D. Damages for loss of dignity
E. Punitive damages
F. Reasonable attorney fees and costs of this action
COUNT II
RETALIATION -STATE CLAIM
25. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 10, and 13 through 21 and 23 of this Complaint as if set forth in full herein.
26. This action is brought pursuant to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
27. Plaintiff gave Defendant notice of the sexual harassment described in this Complaint pursuant to Lockheed’s company procedures by reporting it to Defendant’s Human Resources Department and to her supervisors.
28. After Plaintiff reported the harassment, she was unlawfully retaliated against for reporting the above described unlawful employment practices. Such retaliation on the part of Defendant included: verbal and physical abuse and hostility directed at Plaintiff by her supervisors and co-workers; being transferred into jobs for which she was not trained, and received no training; derisive comments made about Plaintiff because she had filed sexual harassment charges; condemnation from her supervisors because she had consulted her union and Lockheed’s own Human Resources Department and Employee Assistance Program regarding the sexual harassment and retaliation deriving from having reported it; taunting and teasing from co-workers and supervisors because she had filed sexual harassment charges; Plaintiff being constantly and closely “monitored” and watched by supervisors, upon orders to do so by Lockheed management; orders by Lockheed’s management personnel not to leave her work area for any purpose when no such restrictions applied to the other employees in her work area; Plaintiff being constructively discharged by being subjected to a hostile work environment so stressful and humiliating that Plaintiff had no alternative but to resign from her employment due to the conditions she was forced to work under. (see attached Exhibit B), and being subjected to verbal abuse in a threatening and hostile manner by Defendant Lockheed’s Corporate Investigator of Ethics and Business Conduct.
29. Plaintiff reported to Lockheed retaliatory actions on the part of her supervisor and co-workers due to her having made a complaint of sexual harassment, and was informed by a Lockheed Human Resources Manager in January 2001 that her claims of retaliation were all found to be “unsubstantiated”.
30. On or about January 8, 2001, Plaintiff was reprimanded by a Lockheed Division Director, in regard to the “unsubstantiated” sexual harassment and retaliation charges she had filed. When Plaintiff asked why she was being disciplined for “actions taken against (supervisor) Marlees Dunn”, for “disruptive and inappropriate behavior in the work place”, for “raising her voice to management and failing to follow the instructions of her supervisor and manager”, Plaintiff was told that it was because of “the complaint you made with your attorney to the EEOC.”
31. Lockheed had actual and constructive notice of the retaliation described in this Complaint because such retaliation was pervasive and obvious and was in fact perpetrated by Lockheed supervisors and employees, including management employees.
32. Defendants failed to take remedial action in response to Plaintiff’s complaints regarding the retaliatory actions to which Plaintiff was subjected, and of which she had complained to Lockheed.
33. The acts alleged in this Complaint constitute a violation of Section 760.10(7), Florida Statutes (“It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer…to discriminate against any person because that person has opposed any practice which is an unlawful employment practice under this section, or because that person has made a charge, testified, assisted in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this section”).
34. Plaintiff was subjected to adverse working conditions and retaliation so severe and pervasive so as to substantially alter the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment and which created an abusive and hostile working environment. Plaintiff had no choice but to resign her position with Lockheed on or about April 16, 2001.
35. As a result of the retaliation suffered by Plaintiff, as described herein, Plaintiff suffered: loss of wages and other benefits of employment, damages for mental anguish and emotional distress, loss of dignity and other damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, for all damages to which she may be entitled, including, without limitation:
A. Back pay and lost benefits including tuition reimbursement
B. Front pay and future benefits including tuition reimbursement
C. Damages for mental anguish
F. Damages for loss of dignity
G. Punitive damages
F. Reasonable attorney fees and costs of this action
COUNT III
SEXUAL HARASSMENT
FEDERAL CLAIM
36. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 10 and 13 through 21 and 23 of this Complaint as if set forth in full herein.
37. This action is brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2.
38. The actions described in paragraphs 13 through 21 of this Complaint constitute a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2, regarding unlawful employment practices. 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2 makes it “an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s sex..”
39. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) regarding the matters raised by this Complaint (see composite Exhibit C attached hereto) and more than one hundred eighty (180) days have passed since the filing of said complaint.
40. On or about March 1, 2001, the EEOC issued a Letter of Determination in regard to Plaintiff’s charge of discrimination and retaliation against Lockheed, finding “reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the statutes has occurred.” (see attached Exhibit D) On or about May 8, 2001, the EEOC issued to Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue (see attached Exhibit E).
41. As a result of the sexual harassment suffered by Plaintiff, as described herein, Plaintiff suffered: loss of wages, in the form of overtime opportunities forfeited as a result of fears of working alone with her supervisor, due to his sexual harassment of Plaintiff; damages for mental anguish and emotional distress, loss of dignity and other damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, for all damages to which she may be entitled, including, without limitation:
A. Back pay and lost benefits including tuition reimbursement
B. Front pay and future benefits including tuition reimbursement
C. Damages for mental anguish
D. Damages for loss of dignity
E. Punitive damages
F. Reasonable attorney fees and costs of this action
COUNT IV
RETALIATION – FEDERAL CLAIM
42. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 10, 13 through 21, 23 and 27 through 32 of this Complaint as if set forth in full herein.
43. This action is brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-3.
44. The actions alleged in this Complaint constitute a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-3, regarding “other” unlawful employment practices.
45. Plaintiff was subjected to adverse working conditions and retaliation so severe and pervasive so as to alter the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment and which created an abusive and hostile working environment. Plaintiff had no choice but to resign her position with Lockheed on or about April 16, 2001.
46. As a result of the sexual harassment and retaliation suffered by Plaintiff, as described herein, Plaintiff suffered: loss of wages and other benefits of employment, damages for mental anguish and emotional distress, loss of dignity and other damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, for all damages to which she may be entitled, including, without limitation:
A. Back pay and lost benefits including tuition reimbursement
B. Front pay and future benefits including tuition reimbursement
C. Damages for mental anguish
D. Damages for loss of dignity
E. Punitive damages
F. Reasonable attorney fees and costs of this action.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues herein triable by jury.
DATED this _____day of _________________, 2001.
Wayne L. Allen, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 110025
Adrienne E. Trent, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 0060119
W. John Gadd, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 0463061
WAYNE L. ALLEN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
700 N. Wickham Road, Suite 107
Melbourne, Florida 32935
Phone: (321) 254-7550
Fax: (321) 242-1681
