[Note: caption was changed in Sec'y's order of Oct. 4, 1995 from Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. to Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc.]

DATE:  May 5, 1994

In the Matters of


CASE NO.: 94-CAA-2

C.D. VARNADORE
          Complainant
     v.
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY,
MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION,
     and
MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.
          Respondents


CASE NO.: 94-CAA-3

C.D. VARNADORE
          Complainant
     v.
MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.
     and
MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION
          Respondents


                 ORDER DENYING COMPLAINANT'S MOTION
              FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT

     On April 27, 1994, Mr. Varnadore, by counsel, submitted
Complainant's Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Partial
Summary Judgment in the above-captioned cases.  The
Declaration of James Nelson Ramsey, District Attorney General
for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, supplemented the motion. 
On April 30, 1994, Martin Marietta, by counsel, submitted
Respondents' Reply to Complainant's Motion to Reconsider Order
Granting Partial Summary Judgment Dated April 27, 1994.

     When considering Martin Marietta's motions for summary
judgment in the above-captioned cases, the inferences drawn from
the underlying facts were viewed in the light most favorable to
Mr. Varnadore.  (See Order at 3.)  Thus, for example,
despite his denial, it was assumed that Charles Levenhagen had
remarked that someone should get a gun, take Mr. Varnadore out,
and shoot him 

[PAGE 2]
and that Mr. Varnadore is not now, never has been, and never will
be "worth a damn."  (Order at 10-11.)  However, in the context in
which the alleged remark was made, i.e., during a break
from a training session, in a private conversation, between two
persons who had no personal contact with Mr. Varnadore at work
and did not know Mr. Varnadore, the complaint did not establish a
cause of action for which relief may be granted as a matter of
law.[1]   Accordingly, summary judgment in case number 94-CAA-3
was granted.

     However, this ruling does not preclude Mr. Varnadore from
exploring at the hearing whether the remark was made, the extent
to which Mr. Levenhagen's alleged remark may have influenced
others to negatively appraise Mr. Varnadore's performance, how
the alleged remark may have impacted upon Mr. Varnadore's 3.7%
salary increase, and how Mr. Levenhagen's alleged remark may
somehow be an indicia of widespread hostility by Martin Marietta
management toward whistleblowers at the Oak Ridge facility.  

     Similarly, Dr. Shults' statement at the April 28, 1993
Analytical Chemistry Division quarterly meeting that the briefs
in the cases before Judge Von Brand had been submitted and that a
decision was expected in approximately a month (94-CAA-2 Charge
Two) and Martin Marietta's press release that Judge Von Brand's
Recommended Decision and Order was modest (94-CAA-2 Charge Four),
even when viewed in the light most favorable to Mr. Varnadore, do
not establish a cause of action for which relief may be granted
as a matter of law.  Consequently, Martin Marietta's motion for
summary judgment of Mr. Varnadore's complaint on these two
charges was granted.  This ruling does not preclude Mr. Varnadore
from exploring the impact of these occurrences on the two charges
sub judice, i.e. the performance appraisal for the
fiscal year October 1, 1991, to September 30, 1992, and the
affect of this review on Mr. Varnadore's subsequent 3.7% salary
increase of March 1, 1993.

     Wherefore, upon careful consideration of the parties'
submissions and full review of the record, Complainant's motion
for reconsideration is DENIED.

     IT IS SO ORDERED.

                              ____________________________
                              DAVID A. CLARKE, JR.
                              Administrative Law Judge

Washington, D.C.
DAC/cal

[ENDNOTES]
           
[1] Mr. Varnadore had sought relief for the alleged remark in the
form of $50,000 in compensatory damages, $200,000 in exemplary
damages, and the appointment of a special master to report on and
make recommendations on the carrying out of reform to eliminate
the "old culture mentality and retaliatory conduct from DOE
facilities in Oak Ridge, Tennessee . . ."  (Compl. July 29, 1993
Letter at 2-3.)