McQueen v. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp.

JENNIFER MCQUEEN, Plaintiff, v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 19-2743-KHV

United States District Court, D. Kansas

July 27, 2021

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KATHRYN H. VRATIL United States District Judge

On December 9, 2019, Jennifer McQueen filed suit against her former employer, Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation alleging sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C §§ 2000e et seq. Complaint For Damages (Doc. #1); Pretrial Order (Doc. #38) filed December 30, 2020. This matter is before the Court on Defendant Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation's Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. #39) filed January 11, 2021. For the reasons stated below, the Court overrules in part and sustains in part defendant's motion.

Factual Background

The following facts are either uncontroverted, deemed admitted or construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the non-movant.

I. General Factual Background

Northrup Grumman is an aerospace, defense and security company. It does most of its business with the United States government, including the Department of Defense and the intelligence community.

Defendant employed plaintiff, a woman, from 2008 until April 1, 2019 and promoted her three times. In June of 2016, defendant promoted plaintiff to a Manager 1 management position. In that position, plaintiff worked with approximately 30 direct reports to carry out “war games” for the United States military.

During plaintiff's employment, defendant had policies prohibiting discrimination based on sex. If an employee experienced discrimination, he or she could report it to a manager, the human resources department (“HR”) or call a toll-free phone line.

Initially, plaintiff reported to Ron Garner, who reported to Mike McGuire. In her 2017 year-end performance review, Garner gave plaintiff a rating of “successful performer.” In October of 2017, Jon Goodsmith replaced Garner as plaintiff's supervisor and began assigning administrative duties to plaintiff.

Upon becoming plaintiff's manager, Goodsmith repeatedly told plaintiff that he was going to “mentor” her. Goodsmith also touched plaintiff's shoulder, upper back and upper arm frequently. Goodsmith touched plaintiff's knee ten to 15 times and gripped her upper forearm three times. On at least three separate occasions, plaintiff asked Goodsmith to reduce the number of times he touched her because it made her uncomfortable. Goodsmith told plaintiff that he did not mean anything by the touching, but he did not stop. Plaintiff began keeping a daily count of the number of times that Goodsmith touched her. McQueen Dep. (Doc. #39-2) at 17. The highest daily count was 17 instances of touching her back. Id. On one occasion, plaintiff snapped at Goodsmith to stop touching her. Goodsmith called plaintiff insubordinate and said that she must be on her period. On another occasion, one of plaintiff's co-workers, Charles Herrick, saw Goodsmith touch plaintiff on her thigh.^[1] Goodsmith “had to make a special effort” to touch plaintiff's thigh because she had positioned her legs away from him. After this incident, Herrick confronted Goodsmith. Goodsmith became nervous and explained that he “touches everyone.” Herrick pointed out that in the four years that he had known Goodsmith, Goodsmith had not touched him that way.

Herrick has never seen Goodsmith touch anyone other than plaintiff. Plaintiff saw Goodsmith touch other employees on the arm, but not on the shoulder or knee.

From February to April of 2018, plaintiff, Goodsmith and other employees traveled to North Carolina on business. During this time, Goodsmith approached plaintiff three times, asking to have a conversation with her in his hotel room, over a bottle of wine, about her future with defendant. Each time, plaintiff responded that she would love to talk with Goodsmith about her future, but that she felt uncomfortable doing so in his room.^[2] Goodsmith later gave a bottle of wine to Herrick stating, “I wanted to share this with [plaintiff] but couldn't get her to come up to my room. Maybe you'll have more luck with her.” Herrick understood this to mean that Goodsmith was unsuccessful at getting plaintiff to have sex with him. Herrick Decl. (Doc. #41-4) ¶ 11. When Herrick asked Goodsmith what he meant, Goodsmith became flustered. Id.

In May of 2018, after he returned from the business trip, Goodsmith gave plaintiff administrative assistant duties that he did not give to any of the managers who were male. McQueen Dep. (Doc. #39-2) at 26-27. Goodsmith also began keeping a log of plaintiff's alleged performance deficiencies, including times that plaintiff missed work. Goodsmith's log noted that “[m]any other items could have been added if [he] would have started this log in October 2017.” Goodsmith Dep. (Doc #39-5) at 4. This log also contained an entry alleging that plaintiff engaged in misconduct on October 27, 2019, seven months after defendant terminated her employment.^[3]Goodsmith's log faulted plaintiff for failing to respond to an email even though the email did not require a response.^[4]

In June of 2018, Goodsmith gave plaintiff her mid-year performance review. It described plaintiff as an “excellent project lead” and stated that she had done an “excellent job.” The review also stated that plaintiff required additional focus on promptly responding to emails, hiring personnel in a timely manner, completing evaluations of direct reports by the deadlines and arriving in a timely fashion for meetings. Plaintiff was surprised that the mid-year review was negative.^[5] Plaintiff does not dispute that she was not meeting Goodsmith's expectations. Specifically, plaintiff was not responding to emails from peers or upper leadership within one hour, responding to emails from external senders within the same day and arriving to meetings before the meeting's host. Plaintiff notes that as of October 22, 2020, Goodsmith had not hired her replacement even though he faulted her for failing to hire personnel in a timely manner.^[6]

Plaintiff testified that Goodsmith's presence affected her work performance because he made her feel as though she “couldn't do anything right, even if [she] was doing something right, or something that [she] knew was the proper procedure. McQueen Dep. (Doc. #39-2) at 80.

II. Dave Ennis

In spring of 2017, defendant hired Dave Ennis, who reported to plaintiff. When plaintiff saw Ennis' resume, she recalled an incident that had happened approximately one year earlier. An unknown number had texted plaintiff “you're hot” and sent a photo of male genitals. At the time, plaintiff did not recognize the number. When plaintiff saw Ennis' phone number on his resume, however, she recognized it as the same number. Plaintiff did not tell anyone about the message.

After Ennis began reporting to plaintiff, he asked her about the state of her marriage. Ennis told plaintiff that there were “plenty of men willing to step in where [her] husband can't.” Plaintiff told Ennis that his comments did not have any place in the workplace and ended the conversation.

In November of 2017, Ennis again inquired as to the state of plaintiff's marriage. Plaintiff confirmed that she and her husband had been through marriage counseling. Ennis told plaintiff that he and his wife had gone through counseling. He also told plaintiff that he had “found that sometimes you need to supplement your marriage” and “have to find the people that can satisfy you outside of your marriage.” Ennis added that he thought he could be the person who could satisfy plaintiff outside of her marriage. Plaintiff told Ennis that they were both married and that it's “not going to happen.” Ennis continued the conversation by telling plaintiff that he had “admired her from afar for a while” and that he had told McGuire that he would only work for plaintiff. Plaintiff then ended the conversation.

In February of 2018, Ennis suggested to plaintiff that the upcoming business trip would be a good time for her to be his “road wife.” In March of 2018, plaintiff told Goodsmith that Ennis was “being too friendly” and “leaning too closely” to her and “invading [her] space” so much that she had to “remove herself and stand up.” McQueen Dep. (Doc. #39-2) at 25. Goodsmith told plaintiff that she was being paranoid. During the business trip, Ennis asked to come to plaintiff's room two to five times. Ennis showed up at plaintiff's hotel room once, and the two discussed work and family matters.

In May of 2018, Ennis sent plaintiff a series of text messages, including one in which he asked plaintiff to take a photo of her genitals and send it to him. In these text messages Ennis told plaintiff that senior leadership would “have his back” if defendant investigated him.^[7] McQueen Dep. (Doc. #39-2) at 25.

III. Brian Vaught

In the fall of 2017, plaintiff was working on a project with another Manager I, Brian Vaught. Vaught sent plaintiff emails suggesting that she lacked the knowledge necessary to manage the project. Plaintiff notified Goodsmith, who said that he would raise the issue with Vaught's supervisor. Vaught then emailed plaintiff an apology.

In the spring of 2018, Vaught referred to plaintiff as “window dressing” and told plaintiff that she was only part of the exercise “so the old guys would see a pretty bundle.” Vaught also told plaintiff that she should “go home where [she] could be of real value behind the curtain.” Plaintiff reported Vaught's comments to Goodsmith. Goodsmith told plaintiff that Vaught was “a bully” and that plaintiff needed to try to resolve the situation with him. Plaintiff was not satisfied with this response and reported Vaught's comments to Rachel Buniski, an HR...