Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Peterson v. Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation

United States District Court, D. Maryland

September 15, 2014



WILLIAM M. NICKERSON, Sr., District Judge.

Pending before the Court are various motions to dismiss. Specifically, Defendant Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation (Northrop Grumman) filed a motion to dismiss Count I of the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 24, and Defendant Salaried Employees Association (SEA) filed a motion to dismiss Count III of the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 23. The Court determines that no hearing is necessary, Local Rule 105.6 and for the reasons stated herein, both motions will be GRANTED.


Plaintiff Brian Peterson (Peterson) filed this case against Northrop Grumman and SEA for employment discrimination based on sex, race, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et. seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. § 158. Peterson is an African-American male who was employed at Northrop Grumman from 1985 to 1996, and again from 1998 until March 13, 2012. Until 2011, he progressed in employment, gaining top secret clearance and other necessary experiences to qualify him for positions that became available.

During the time at issue, Peterson worked in the Sensors and Systems Division in the Advanced Technical Laboratory. He was a top secret clearance employee who provided back up support and coverage for understaffed areas. The manager of his group, the Mission Assurance H-Module, was Gary Tichnell (Tichnell).

Peterson was also a dues paying member of SEA from 2005 onward. In 2009, he was elected to be an SEA Union Representative. He served in that capacity until his dismissal in 2013. As Union Representative, Peterson requested a review of overtime assignments within his group for the first half of 2011. The resulting investigation showed that a female Caucasian co-worker, Donna Crum, received 441 hours of overtime while the remaining ten male workers in the department received 272 hours combined.

Peterson alleges that because of his investigation request and his sex and gender, the following adverse employment actions occurred:

(1) Peterson was excluded from silicon carbide wafer training that all other members - Caucasian - of Assurance H-Module received. This training was a prerequisite for certain employment and overtime opportunities, from which Peterson could not benefit because Tichnell refused to offer training.
(2) In July, 2011, Tichnell, counter to usual practice with Caucasian and female employees, failed to respond to Peterson's request to participate in a class through Northrop Grumman's Education Reimbursement Program until the class's second-to-last day.
(3) Northrop Grumman failed to investigate Peterson's September 13, 2011, report that three coworkers - Ed Deltuva, Dudley Crum, and Donna Crum - had broken into his locker to steal his notes of union violations.

Following these incidents, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") as well as with Jim O'Hair, a Northrop Grumman Executive. Peterson was eventually referred to the Human Resources Director, but no further action was taken.

In addition, as part of his union duties, Peterson was asked to track instances of professional salaried employees performing union jobs. On September 19, 2011, Peterson reported that Allen Mumford, a professional employee, was working a union job assigned to Ed Deltuva. Peterson also reported a violation of SEA policy when a junior union member - the SEA President's son - was promoted over three senior engineers. As a result of his reports to SEA, Northrop Grumman, and the NLRB, Peterson alleges that he has been subjected to isolation and harassment by co-workers and supervisors.

On February 28, 2012, Northrop Grumman indefinitely suspended Peterson for engaging in misconduct. Shortly after, the suspension was converted to termination. Peterson requested a "Last Chance" letter through SEA, but that request was rejected on the ground that a Level 3 accusation was lodged. Peterson alleges that other employees had their "Last Chance" letters accepted, and notwithstanding acceptance, that the Level 3 accusation was retaliation for his reporting activities.

Upon termination, Peterson filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Peterson states that his claim with the EEOC was on grounds of race and gender ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.