Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Balderrama, 134 A.3d 398

Background

Balderrama, a Hispanic Business Development Manager at Lockheed Martin, received a poor 2012 performance rating placing him in the bottom 10% despite being part of a team that won a major Denmark contract.
He filed a formal appeal (reclama) in March 2013 contesting the evaluation as "prejudiced," but did not mention age or national origin until a May 9, 2013 call with a senior HR director (Melonie Parker). That May call constituted the first time he asserted protected-class discrimination.
Lockheed investigated the reclama as a performance-review appeal and separately reviewed the discrimination allegation; HR concluded the rating was performance-based, not discriminatory.
In November 2013 Lockheed conducted an economically-motivated reduction in force (RIF) using an objective RIF tool based on three years of performance scores; Balderrama ranked worst in his job group and was laid off.
Balderrama sued under Montgomery County Code §27-19 for (1) discrimination (dismissed on summary judgment) and (2) retaliation for asserting discrimination in his appeal; a jury returned an $830,000 verdict for retaliation.
The Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding Balderrama failed to produce legally sufficient evidence that the RIF termination was motivated by his protected activity or that the RIF was a pretext for retaliation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Did the retaliation claim present a jury question (causation/pretext)?	Balderrama: supervisors and HR retaliated after he complained in May 2013; causation is factual for the jury.	Lockheed: RIF was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason; Balderrama produced no evidence RIF was pretext.	Reversed—insufficient evidence of causation/pretext to submit retaliation claim to jury.
2. When did protected activity occur?	Balderrama: his March reclama and statements of "prejudice" put employer on notice.	Lockheed: March complaints were performance disputes; protected activity began only when he alleged age/national origin in May.	Held for Lockheed—protected activity began May 9, 2013 (specific allegation required).
3. Were earlier actions (PIP, investigation, award suggestion) materially adverse?	Balderrama: PIP, HR investigation, and proposal to remove award were retaliatory adverse actions.	Lockheed: those acts were not materially adverse (no economic harm) or did not occur.	Held for Lockheed—only termination was materially adverse; earlier acts not actionable here.
4. Was the RIF a pretext (poison-pill theory)?	Balderrama: a supervisor could have "poisoned" evaluations and influenced the RIF decision, so jury could infer retaliation.	Lockheed: RIF used objective criteria; ultimate decisionmaker (VP Evans) was not shown to know of the complaint or be motivated by it.	Held for Lockheed—no evidence RIF criteria were falsified or that decisionmaker acted from retaliatory motive; pretext not shown.

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for disparate treatment claims)
Aikens v. United States Postal Service Bd. of Governors, 460 U.S. 711 (1983) (once employer articulates non‑discriminatory reason, ultimate question is intentional discrimination)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (falsity of employer’s explanation can permit inference of discrimination)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation requires materially adverse action that would dissuade a reasonable worker)
Taylor v. Giant of Maryland, LLC, 423 Md. 628 (2011) (Maryland precedent on employment discrimination/retaliation proof)
Edgewood Mgmt. Corp. v. Jackson, 212 Md. App. 177 (2013) (employer liability may follow where supervisory animus taints process upstream)
Nerenberg v. RICA of S. Md., 131 Md. App. 646 (2000) (pretext requires showing both falsity of reason and that discrimination was real reason)
St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (plaintiff must show the employer’s reason was pretext and discrimination was the real reason)
Beaird v. Seagate Tech., 145 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 1998) (in RIF cases, plaintiff may show pretext by proving termination inconsistent with RIF criteria)