Lockhart v. MVM, Inc.
Filed July 2, 2009
Cite as 2009 SOS 4505

FEHA Compliance not Required within Federal Conclave

MVM, Inc. (MVM) was a federal contractor that provided detention (unarmed guard) staffing for the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) at the San Pedro Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility, a federal correctional facility at Terminal Island, California.

Leslie Lockhart (Lockhart) was employed by MVM as custodial officer trainee. She performed contract work with the company. Her employment was terminated before the expiration of her 90-day probationary period.

Lockhart was terminated upon order of Jeffrey Poplin, her supervisor at ICE facility in conjunction with Dina Davis, a human resource manager based at MVM’s headquarters in Vienna, Virginia.

Subsequently, Lockhart filed a complaint against MVM for disability discrimination and retaliation. She claimed that her disabilities included, but were not limited to, occipital neuralgia and depression. She even claimed that MVM knew of her protected status under FEHA but it refused to accommodate these disabilities. Further, it made decisions adverse to her which was motivated by her disabilities.

MVM filed its motion for summary judgment by arguing that the state law claims for disability discrimination and retaliation mentioned in the complaint were barred by the federal enclave doctrine because Lockhart was employed by a federal contractor in a federal enclave.

The trial court denied Lockhart’s evidentiary objections and announced its intention to grant MVM’s motion because “this is what the authorities would require.”

Lockhart appealed.

The California State of Appeal, in affirming the trial court’s decision, ruled that under the doctrine of federal enclave, MVM as a federal contractor was not required to comply with FEHA or with California public policy regarding disabled employees.

When the employment took place within federal enclave, compliance with FEHA was not required even if decision to terminate employment was made and notice of that decision was given to employee outside enclave.

In determining the applicability of the federal enclave doctrine, trial court did not abuse its discretion when it took judicial notice of grant deed showing that the facility at which Lockhart was employed was located on federal land.