TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF FACTS5
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT12
A.Judge Stearns’ Order of Granting Summary Judgment On 11/30/0631
B.Judge Stearns’ Judgment of 12/07/0633
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the FIRST CIRCUIT
No: 07-1184 and 07-1185
On Appeal from a Final Judgment of the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Li was born in China and is an ethnic Chinese. Li has two degrees in science and worked in United Kingdom for years. In 1998, Li was hired by Raytheon and started working at Raytheon’s Marlborough facility in Massachusetts as a software engineer (A 165). During the subsequent 7 years employment at Raytheon, Li was credited as “a valuable employee”, “contributed greatly”, and “was an asset to the team” in her performance reviews (A 213,214).
In late 2002, Li filed an internal discrimination complaint against her ex-task manager Jennifer Lewis. In her complaint, Li, the only Chinese in that group managed by Ms. Lewis, complained that Li was discriminated against by Ms. Lewis because Li’s racial background. Ms. Lewis was very rude to Li but she was polite to others. Ms. Lewis understood that Li’s technical skill is much advanced than the group leader Belinda Gunn, but she actively encouraged Ms. Gunn to modify Li’s advanced software code with Ms. Gunn’s less advanced skill. When Li argued back for product quality, Ms. Lewis cornered Li into a small meeting room, got rid of Li’s supportive co-workers out of the room, and then accused Li of using technical discussion to attack the group leader. Even under such mistreatment, Li tried to apology to Ms. Lewis for improving the relationship. After Li left that group, Ms. Lewis made a negative performance review of Li (A 160).
After making this internal complaint , Li left Raytheon’s Marlborough facility and was voluntarily deployed to Raytheon’s NASA Langley Virginia facility in 2003. At the beginning of 2004, Li came back to Raytheon Marlborough, Ms. Lewis started to stare at Li whenever they met alone in the company, Li felt intimidated (A 165,166).
In April of 2004, Ian Mitchell, Ms. Lewis’ friend, became Li’s department manager. He used Li’s lack of security clearance, as a pretext to not assigning Li any new jobs in Marlborough. Instead, he asked Li to apply a job in Towson Maryland, despite the fact that a number of assignments in project ERAM (En Route Airway Modernization) did not require security clearances. Meanwhile, Li’s section manager Scott Oglesby, who was working for Mr. Mitchell, pushed Li to quit. Mr. Oglesby claimed “The company is going to layoff, I’m sure your name is on the list”. He directly told Li that she should leave Raytheon because she had problems with Ms. Lewis (A 167).
In June of 2004, Li searched help from ERAM leads Guy Germana and Jerry Griep and obtained an assignment. Li promptly sent an email (A 185) to HR officer Arthur Buliung on July 1, 2004 and complained about Mr. Oglesby’s conduct. Mr. Buliung ignored this email. Li then sent an email to Raytheon Asian Pacific Association (RAPA) leaders on July 17, 2004 and spoke out Mr. Oglesby and Mr. Mitchell’s conduct (A 187) . Mr. Buliung and software center lab manager Maryann King set a meeting with Li, they did not agree that Mr. Mitchell would attempt to remove Li from office to please Ms. Lewis, instead they blamed Li for her difficulties in finding a job due to the fact that Li did not have security clearance. They disregarded the fact that there were about 26 engineers without clearance including Ian Mitchell himself, and Li was the only one was pushed to quit . They did not inform Li of that there was no layoff at all (A 168).
Due to Mr. Buliung and Ms. King’s unhelpful response, Mr. Oglesby continued harassing Li on July 29, 2004. He deliberately denied “No, I never said that [the company was going to layoff, I’m sure your name was on the list], you can not prove it.” He laughed at Li by saying “When Jen Lewis becomes the lab manager, you will be in trouble.” (A 168). Li noticed that since she started working in ERAM, Ms. Lewis’ staring at Li became more aggressive and intense, and Li felt physically threatened and even checked surrounding when out her office in evening (A 168). Li sent an email to Mr. Buliung to address her personal safety concern and family safety concern, and her fears of Ms. Lewis (A 190).
Mr. Buliung arranged Mr. Didio, a Raytheon’s Employee Assistant Program (EAP) counselor, to interview Li on August 3, 2004, although Mr. Didio told Mr. Buliung that personal safety concern was a Human Resource issue and not a mental health issue (A 218). Li was not informed of the impending mental evaluation, so that she thought that Mr. Didio was an investigator. (A 169) Mr. Didio did not ask Li for why she felt unsafe. He directly asked Li "do you want to kill someone?" He physically intimidated Li with finger pointing and scurrilous stares. Gripped with panic, Li was traumatized and felt raped. She was not able to function normally since then (A 168-170).
Overwhelmed, Li sent an email to the Raytheon Asian Pacific Association (RAPA) mailing list on 8/8/04. She stated “… John Didio asked me ‘DO YOU WANT TO KILL SOMEONE ?! …’“ (A 191). On the next day, Mr. Buliung asked Li to stop sending email. Later that day, Mr. Buliung sent an email to RAPA mailing list and falsely claimed the “issue [caused by John Didio’s interview] has been resolved” (A 171). Overwhelmed, Li complained to the Raytheon Ethics Office on 8/23/04 (A 193-194). Ethics officer Tim Schultz rejected Li’s complaint because he was advised by Mr. Buliung that Mr. Didio asked whether Li had thought of hurting herself or others. Li felt painful under such “mis-communication” and requested letting Chinese employees involve the investigation. (A 197,198).
Later in August of 2004, the Lab manager Ms. King and a Chinese manager Ed tang, Mr. Buliung and Ms. Kolenski set up a meeting with Li. They asked Li to “stop sending email” and “move forward”. On the next day, Li went to Ms. King’s office and told her that Mr. Didio’s interview made her want to commit suicide, Ms. King answered “He’s [it’s] not intentional” (A 173,174).
Overwhelmed, Li sent an e-mail to William Swanson, Chairman & CEO of Raytheon Company on August 30, 2004 to speak out her situation, to which Raytheon viewed as inappropriate (A 124). On the next day, Li was put on administrative leave and ordered to see a psychiatrist Dr. Julia Reade.
While hiding Dr. Reade’s report, Raytheon attempted to let Li go back to work at the end of October 2004 (A 219). Raytheon attempted to let Li sign a release to waive her right to sue on 11/9/04 (A 221). As a result of Raytheon’s hiding Dr. Reade’s report, Li’s Short Term Disability Benefit was denied by MetLife on 11/24/04 due to lack of medical document. As a result of the MetLife’s denial, HR officer Ms. Kolenski sent a warning letter on December 30, 2004 and asked Li to go back to work and threatened to terminate her employment (A 203).
In January 2005, Li found Dr. Reade’s conclusion from the MetLife representative Ken Lemell who approved Li’s Short Term Disability Benefit because Dr. Reade stated that Li could not return to work (A 201). Li realized Raytheon’s deceptive conduct, and her mental condition became worse. Li has been taking anti-psychotic (Risperdal) medication to calm down since 1/18/05, and claimed long term disability (A 220).
As a result of the retaliatory mistreatment by Raytheon, Li suffered Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), total disability and family broken, which for Li is worse than termination and this action followed.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The district judge erred when he granted Raytheon’s motion for summary judgment. He merely referred to Raytheon’s conclusion and ruled that “Li presents no competent evidence of retaliatory acts, that she suffered an adverse employment action,…” with no summary of facts, no discussion of legal standards and no analysis at all.
The district judge failed to touch on the alleged adverse employment actions. He failed to rule on whether the actions from Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Oglesby and Ms. Lewis are retaliatory conduct linked to Li’s prior discrimination complaint against Ms. Lewis. He failed to rule on whether these actions is adverse employment action and is not time barred.
The district judge failed to rule on whether the mental evaluation imposed by Raytheon with unfounded homicide accusation and physical intimidation, and the subsequent actions of putting Li on administrative leave to shut up the victim and hiding Dr. Reade’s report to warn Li going back to work met the standard of “materially adverse employment action”.
I.THE DISTRICT JUDGE ENTERED NEGLECT JUDGMENT IN GRANTING RAYTHEON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
To establish a claim of retaliation, the plaintiff “must show that (1) she engaged in protected conduct, (2) she suffered adverse action in that it “well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination,” (3) there is causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.” Wideman v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 141 F.3rd 1453 (11th Cir. 1998) ; and Sharon M. Frankel v. U.S. Postal Service, 96 F. Supp. 2d 19 (D. MA, 2000) .
Raytheon did not argue about the element (1), because Li filed an internal complaint against Ms. Lewis in 2002. Li was engaged protected activity.
Raytheon did not vigorously argue about the element (3) Casual Connection, because Ian Mitchell and Ms. Lewis closely worked together, and they were in the same circle (A 199). Mr. Mitchell knew the fact that Li filed a complaint against Jen Lewis in 2002 (A 099). Li’s section manager Mr. Oglesby directly stated that Li should leave Raytheon because she had problems with Ms. Lewis (A 181).
Raytheon contested the element (2) and claimed that there was no competent evidence suggesting that Li suffered adverse employment action. Raytheon argued that Ian Mitchell stopped assigning jobs was time barred, Scott Oglesby’s harassment on July 29, 2004 was not actionable; Further, Raytheon denied Ms. Lewis’ staring at Li as a dispute fact (A 098). Finally, Raytheon argued that the HR imposed a mental evaluation did not constitute “materially adverse action”.
The district judge did not touch on the alleged adverse employment actions. His Order of granting the motion for summary judgment is a little more than one page (A 224). Without supportive opinion, he merely referred to Raytheon’s conclusion and ruled that “Li presents no competent evidence of retaliatory acts, that she suffered an adverse employment action,…” with no summary of facts, no discussion of legal standards and no analysis at all. The district judge denied Li’s Motion to Reconsideration, in which Li listed two alleged adverse employment actions and requested Judge Stearns to make explanations (A 021).
Judge Stearns’ order granting Raytheon’s motion for summary judgment fails to demonstrate an effort to do justice. By merely referring to Raytheon’s pleading in an opinion void of any discussion of the substance of the case, the district judge essentially considered the record evidence in the light most favorable to, and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of, the moving party, instead of the nonmoving party .
Based on such neglect judgment alone, the Judge’s granting of the motion for summary judgment should be reversed.
II.THE DISTRICT JUDGE FAILED TO RULE ON WHETHER MR. MITCHELL AND MR. OGLESBY’S RETALIATORY CONDUCT IS TIME BARRED
Li filed discrimination charges to the EEOC on April 21, 2005 (A 215). She can recover for events occurring during the previous 300 days; that is on or after June 26, 2004.
Since April of 2004, Mr. Mitchell withheld assignments and asked Li to take a job in Towson Maryland disregard that certain number of assignments in project ERAM (En Route Airway Modernization) did not need clearances. Mr. Oglesby pushed Li to quit and directly claimed that because she had problems with Ms. Lewis. These events had happened until June 1, 2004, the day Li found an assignment in project ERAM by herself. Only Mr. Oglesby’s harassment on July 29, 2004 occurred after the time threshold June 26, 2004. On that day, he deliberately denied that he had ever told Li that “The company is going to layoff, I’m sure your name is on the list”. He laughed at Li by saying “When Jen Lewis becomes the lab manager, you will be in trouble,” Li answered “Bill Clinton became the president, Paula Jones was safe,” Mr. Oglesby reprimanded Li “Shame!” (A 168). This continuing harassment combined with Ms. Lewis’ consistently staring at Li trigged Li’s fear. On the same day, Li sent an email to HR to address her personal safety concern.
According to the “continuing violation doctrine”, hostile work environment claims do not "turn on single acts but on an aggregation of hostile acts extending over a period of time." Havercombe v. Dep't of Educ., 250 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2001). Mr. Oglesby’s harassment on July 29, 2004 anchors all related incidents including Mr. Mitchell’s withholding assignments and Mr. Oglesby’s layoff threat and push to leave. Mr. Oglesby and Mr. Mitchell acted under one motive, which is that to cause Li to quit and to satisfy Ms. Lewis. The fact that Li found an assignment by herself did not change this motive. Specifically, Mr. Oglesby’s denial on July 29, 2004 brought to light that his conduct was a purely harassment.
Therefore, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Oglesby’s conduct from April 2004 to July 29, 2004, as a totality, constitutes adverse employment action and is not time barred.
III.THE DISTRICT JUDGE FAILED TO RULE ON WHETHER RAYTHEON HR USED MENTAL EVALUATION AS A MEANS TO MISTREAT LI CONSTITUTES “MATERIALLY ADVERSE ACTION”
The Judge did not touch on the most significant allegation, the imposed mental evaluation, and did not examine the evidence in the light most favorable to Li. See White v. N.H. Dep't of Corr., 221 F.3d 254, 259 (1st Cir. 2000). We "may not consider the credibility of witnesses, resolve conflicts in testimony or evaluate the weight of the evidence." Katz v. City Metal Co., 87 F.3d 26, 28 (1st Cir. 1996). Our review "is weighted toward preservation of the jury's verdict, for we must affirm unless the evidence was so strongly and overwhelmingly inconsistent with the verdict that no reasonable jury could have returned [it]." Crowley v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 303 F.3d 387, 393 (1st Cir. 2002).
Ms. Lewis constantly stared at Li, Li felt physically threatened and even was paranoid of surroundings when out her office in evening. Li reported to HR officer Mr. Buliung concerned with her personal safety. In the email of July 29, 2004, Li stated “I told Scott [Oglesby] that if anything happened on me or on my family, don’t believe that it’s an accident, it may be a ‘murder’!” (A 190).
Resembling to the case McDonough v. City of Quincy, 452 F.3d 8, 16 (1st Cir. 2006) , McDonough was retaliated and was working in such fear for his personal safety that he had given documents to another officer in the QPD to used upon his ‘sudden or suspicious death”. City of Quincy’s putting McDonough on administrative leave and ordering him to see a psychiatrist constituted an adverse employment action. This is exactly what happened on Li. McDonough used the word “sudden or suspicious death”, and Li feared herself of being ‘murder’ed. The “’murder’” in quote indicated that Li sensed something disaster but was going to happen beyond her understanding. McDonough was ordered to see a psychiatrist. Li was tramped into a mental evaluation without being informed, she was striped her right of consent and was cornered into a small room with three Raytheon representatives, Mr. Buliung, Ms. Kolenski and Mr. Didio. Mr. Didio did not ask Li why she felt unsafe, the first question he asked was “Do you [Li] want to kill someone” and used his finger pointed at Li and showed scurrilous smiling . The imposed mental evaluation is much more severe than McDonough’s outside third party evaluation, because Li was traumatized and “mentally raped” (A 169).
Raytheon asserted that the reason to evaluate Li was because her email mentioned “murder”. Despite Mr. Didio suggested “the issue in the e-mail of possible danger to Ms. Li or her family appeared to be a human resources issue rather than a mental health issue” (A 218), Mr. Buliung never admitted Li’s email concerned for her safety. Mr. Buliung even took a risk of perjury in his Answer (§14) to the Amended Complaint, in which he claimed “she [Li] did not report any personal safety concern” (A 043). A reasonable jury could infer that Mr. Buliung intentionally mischaracterized Li’s personal safety concern as Li wanted to murder others in order to justify Mr. Didio’s accusation “Do you want to kill someone”. Such extreme conduct reflected Mr. Buliung’s extremely biased motive towards Ms. Lewis.
The extremely biased motive can also be reflected in other incidents. When Mr. Didio left the meeting room on 8/3/04, Li complained to Mr. Buliung that Mr. Didio insulted her. Mr. Buliung answered that “If Jen Lewis read that email, what she will feel?” Li answered “probably same, but that email is my true feeling.” This conversation indicated that Mr. Buliung arbitrated that Li’s alert of personal safety concern “insulted” Ms. Lewis even before he had any investigation on the staring incident (170). In fact, Mr. Buliung never informed Li of whether he had investigated Ms. Lewis’ staring incident until in his Supplementary Answer of Interrogatory, in which he claimed that Ms. Lewis denied (A 080);
The Supreme Court, in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway v. White, No. 05-259, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 4895 (June 22, 2006), held that for unlawful retaliation to occur, “a plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse, which in this context means it might well have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.”
A reasonable jury could conclude that mischaracterizing Li’s personal safety concern as Li wanted to murder others would have dissuaded any reasonable workers from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.
Once the damage had been made, Mr. Buliung systematically covered up. He changed “kill” to “harm” or “hurt” in all HR’s memos with respect to the question “do you want to kill someone”. Tactically, Mr. Buliung and Ms. Kolenski never mentioned the word “harm” or “hurt” in front of Li (A 171). In the memo of 8/9/04 (A 192), Mr. Buliung wrote down that Ms. Kolenski told Li that Mr. Didio did not ask “do you want to kill someone”, but Mr. Buliung did not write down the following sentence, which was that Ms. Kolenski said that Mr. Didio asked “Do you want to kill someone OR do you want to k***********f” (A 171).
Mr. Buliung prevented Li from searching helps from Raytheon Asian Pacific Association (RAPA), he sent an email to RAPA and false claimed that the “issue [caused by Mr. Didio’s interview] has been resolved”. Mr. Buliung interfered with Li’s complaint to Raytheon Ethic officer Tim Schultz about Mr. Didio’s conduct. Ms. King ignored Li’s suicidal thoughts and asked Li to “stop sending emails” and “move forward” (A 172,173). Overwhelmed, Li sent an email to Bill Swanson, Raytheon’s Chairman and CEO on August 30, 2004, and spoke out her situation (A 124). On the next day, Li was put on administrative leave and ordered to see a psychiatrist Dr. Julia Reade.
A reasonable jury could conclude that Raytheon systematically cover up, ignoring Li’s suicidal thoughts and putting her on administrative leave to shut up the victim constitutes an adverse employment action.
While hiding Dr. Reade’s report of 10/7/04, Raytheon contacted with Li’s attorney Paul Holtzman, attempted to let Li go back to work on 11/1/04(A 219) and attempted to let her to sign a release to waive her right to sue on 11/9/04 (A 221). While hiding Dr. Reade’s report and Li applying for short term disability (STD) with helps from her own doctors, Raytheon HR officer Ms. Kolenski warned Li to go back to work and threatened to terminate her employment on 11/30/04 (A 203). Such deceptive conduct unjustly delayed Li’s STD benefit and unjustly caused Li re-traumatized when Li found out Dr. Reade’s conclusion from a MetLife representative in January 2005 because Dr. Reade stated that Li could not return to work (A 201). Li started taking anti-psychotic (Risperdal) medication to calm down since 1/18/05, and claimed long term disability (A 220). Later, Raytheon ignored Li’s complaint on 1/21/05 about the conduct of hiding doctor’s conclusion (A 205), and ignored Li’s request on 1/28/05 for sending Dr. Reade’s report to her Chinese doctors (A 206). After nearly a year, Li received the first copy of Dr. Reade’s report in the Department of Industrial Accidents (DIA) Court on 9/8/05.
A reasonable jury could infer that the action of hiding of Dr. Reade’s report while warning Li to go back to work is outrageous for the purpose of concealing the traumatic damage caused by the homicide interrogation.
Even according to the traditional standard for establishing discrimination claims, the damage of trauma, re-trauma, total disability, lost career and family is far severe than any material change to terms and conditions of employment, such as hiring, disciplining or discharging, compensation, promotions and other employment opportunities, and status as an employee.
The district judge failed to rule on whether the mental evaluation imposed by Raytheon with unfounded homicide accusation and physical intimidation, and the subsequent actions of putting Li on administrative leave to shut up the victim and hiding Dr. Reade’s report to warn Li going back to work met the standard of “materially adverse employment action”. Accordingly, the District Judge’s allowance of the motion for summary judgment should be reversed.
IV.THE APPELLANT REQUESTS TO REINSTATE THE DENIED AND THE DECLINED VARIOUS STATE LAW CLAIMS
Previously, the district judge denied Li’s Motion (#46) to add Chapter 151B state law of anti-discrimination claims on 4/6/06 (007). Later, the Judge declined Li’s claims of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against Mr. Buliung (Count VI), Misrepresentation & Deceit against Raytheon (Count VII) and Tortiously Interference with Advantage Relation against Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Buliung (Count VIII) on 11/30/04 (A 225).
In 2006, Li moved these state law claims to the Middlesex Superior court. However, the state court dismissed Li’s state law claims because this pending action in Federal Court (Middlesex Superior Court, 06-1686), so that the state law claims have never been ruled on the merits. Li requests that these state law claims to be reinstated and remanded to the District Court for trial on the merits, because the 151B claims and tort claims are still in the statute of limitation.
The chain of actions from Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Oglesby and Ms. Lewis are retaliatory conduct linked to Li’s prior discrimination complaint against Ms. Lewis. The mental evaluation imposed by Raytheon with unfounded homicide accusation and physical intimidation, and the subsequent actions of putting Li on administrative leave to shut up the victim and hiding doctor’s report when warning Li back to work met the standard of “materially adverse employment action”. The district judge failed to rule on whether Raytheon managers’ retaliatory actions are time barred. He failed to rule on whether Raytheon HR imposed mental evaluation constitutes “materially adverse action”.
Accordingly, the Judge’s granting of the motion for summary judgment should be reversed. The dismissal of Li’s Retaliation claim (Count II) should be reinstated and remanded to the District Court for trial on the merits.
According to ancillary jurisdiction, the claims of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against Mr. Buliung (Count VI), the claim of Misrepresentation & Deceit against Raytheon (Count VII) and the claim of Tortiously Interference with Advantage Relation against Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Buliung (Count VIII) should be reinstated and remanded to the District Court for trial on the merits.
According to ancillary jurisdiction, the denied 151B claims should be instated and remanded to the District Court for trial on the merits.
YONG LI (pro se)
Sudbury MA 01776
Date: March 21, 2007
A.Judge Stearns’ Order of Granting Summary Judgment On 11/30/06
Case 1:05-cv-12035-RGS Document 148 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-12035-RGS
RAYTHEON COMPANY, IAN C. MITCHELL,
And ARTHUR BULIUNG
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
November 30, 2006
This action arises out of plaintiff Yong Li’s employment with defendant Raytheon Company and its investigations of Li’s internal race discrimination complaint. Defendants Raytheon, Ian C. Mitchell (Li’s former department manager at Raytheon), and Arthur Buliung (a former Raytheon human resources administrator) move for summary judgment on all of Li’s race discrimination and retaliation claims, and her associated state law claims. Defendants point out that the material facts are undisputed and that there is no evidence supporting Li’s claims1.
The court agrees with Raytheon that Li’s claims fail because, among other things, she is an at-will employee, there is no competent evidence that Raytheon treated Li differently than any other employee, Li presents no competent evidence of retaliatory acts, that she suffered an adverse employment action, that Raytheon engaged in misconduct
1The court is thoroughly familiar with the facts and claims in this case having acted on sixty-five motions of substance and procedure since allowing Li to amend her Complaint in February of 2006.
Case 1:05-cv-12035-RGS Document 148 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 2 of 2
in its handling of her internal discrimination complaint or the investigation of her failure to return to Raytheon after the expiration of her Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in their supporting memorandum, the motion of defendants Raytheon Company, Ian C. Mitchell, and Arthur Buliung for summary judgment is ALLOWED on Li’s federal claims2.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2The foundational federal claims being dismissed, the court declines to consider Li’s various state-law claims. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988)
B.Judge Stearns’ Judgment of 12/07/06
Case 1:05-cv-12035-RGS Document 150 Filed 12/07/2006 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-12035-RGS
v.CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-12035-RGS
RAYTHEON COMPANY, IAN C. MITCHELL,
and ARTHUR BULIUNG
STEARNS, D.J.DECEMBER 7, 2006
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS COURT’S ALLOWANCE OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANTS, RAYTHEON COMPANY, IAN C. MITCHELL, and ARTHUR BULIUNG.
RICHARD G. STEARNS
UNITED STATES DISTRIC JUDGE
/s/ Mary H. Johnson
Answered By: little dog - 3/22/2007