The filing says HR upheld the complaint and suspended the supervisor - then he came back
A former quality engineer says HR upheld his hostile work environment complaint and suspended his supervisor - then left that supervisor in charge of him.
The claim comes in a complaint filed August 17, 2026, against Lockheed Martin Corporation in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The engineer brings claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Florida Civil Rights Act, and a claim of negligent supervision, which the filing frames as a duty to supervise employees and agents so they do not violate discrimination law.
The filing describes eight years of service without discipline. It says he was "known as a hard-working, reliable and cooperative employee," received excellent reviews, and had never been disciplined until the last several months of his employment, when the complaint alleges his record "changed abruptly after he complained of a hostile work environment."
That earlier complaint was about his supervisor, according to the filing. The document alleges he was subjected to different terms and conditions of employment based on his national origin, which it identifies as Iranian, "and/or perceived religion," and that he raised the matter with human resources.
The complaint says human resources investigated and "concluded that [the supervisor] had, indeed, created a hostile work environment." It alleges the supervisor was disciplined, "which included a suspension."
The filing then alleges he came back to the same reporting line. It says that on his return the supervisor "was not happy with Plaintiff because of the complaint he had made," and that he was "permitted to remain as the supervisor of Plaintiff, which gave him the opportunity to retaliate against Plaintiff for his earlier complaint against him."
The retaliation described in the complaint ran through the discipline system. The filing states: "The retaliation began with bogus disciplinary actions, which were orchestrated by [the supervisor] to make it appear that Plaintiff was receiving progressive discipline." The engineer says he told human resources what was happening, and that "they did nothing." The complaint says he was then terminated.
The retaliation claim turns on protected activity. The filing says he engaged in it by complaining to human resources that he was being discriminated against based on his national origin, and alleges he was then subjected to "hostility, false accusations and termination." The negligent supervision count alleges the company "knew or should have known of the unwillingness of its supervisory personnel to adhere to the employment discrimination laws."
The engineer filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, numbered 510-2025-04314. The agency issued a Determination and Notice of Rights on May 28, 2026, dismissing the charge and issuing notice of the right to sue. The notice says the agency would not proceed further with its investigation and made no determination on whether the statutes were violated. It adds that this does not mean the claims have no merit, and does not certify that the respondent is in compliance with the statutes.
The complaint seeks back pay, reinstatement, the value of lost benefits, damages for mental anguish, legal fees, and punitive or liquidated damages. It also seeks front pay and benefits "until Plaintiff attains the age of 70 and/or a reasonable time." It does not state a total figure. A jury trial is demanded.
None of the allegations have been tested, and no court has ruled on any of the claims.
