[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

CASE NO.: 94-CAA-2


In the Matter of


C.D. VARNADORE
          Complainant
     v.

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY,
MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION,
     and
MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.
          Respondents



                 ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS' MOTION
                       FOR RECONSIDERATION OF RULING
                     RELATIVE TO FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992
             AND CLARIFYING ORDER OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT

     In the Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment, issued April
6, 1994, charge three of case number 94-CAA-2, addressing a 3.7%
Salary Increase Over Five Years, read as follows:

          Concerning the performance appraisal resulting in
     Mr. Varnadore's 3.7% salary increase, the record
     reflects that Mr. Wright did not show the Annual
     Performance Review to Mr. Varnadore until January 19,
     1993, (Wright Affidavit at 1, 3), which was after the
     hearing before Judge Von Brand.  Therefore, Mr.
     Varnadore did not have the opportunity to be heard on
     whether Martin Marietta retaliated vis-a-vis his
     merit increase for that year.  Accordingly, the
     portion of the complaint dealing with Mr. Varnadore's
     salary increase for the period from October 1, 1991, to
     September 30, 1992, remains in issue.

(Order at 8.)  

     On April 15, 1994, Martin Marietta submitted Respondent's
Motion for Reconsideration of Ruling with Respect to 
[PAGE 2]
Complainant's Salary Discrimination Claim Relative to Fiscal Year
1991-1992.  In this motion, Martin Marietta asserted that the
performance appraisal that affected Mr. Varnadore's salary in
1992 was given to him on February 5, 1992.  (Resp. at 3.)  Since
the February 5, 1992 appraisal was a subject of the litigation
before Judge Von Brand in 92-CAA-2, 92-CAA-5, and 93-CAA-1,
Martin Marietta asserted that Mr. Varnadore's salary increase for
the period from October 1, 1991, to September 30, 1992, should
not be re-litigated in this proceeding.  (Resp. at 3.)

     On April 30, 1994, Mr. Varnadore submitted Complainant's
Response to Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration and
Complainant's First Motion in Limine, asserting that he is
entitled to a trial regarding his current salary and the effects
upon it of the last performance evaluation he received from Dr.
Shults and Mr. Wright.[1]   (Compl. Mtn. at 1.)

     The Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment apparently
created confusion on this issue and therefore needs
clarification.  On January 19, 1993, after the hearings in 92-
CAA-2, 92-CAA-5, and 93-CAA-1 concluded, Mr. Wright prepared Mr.
Varnadore's Annual Performance Review for the period of October
1, 1991, to September 30, 1992.  The appraisal described Mr.
Varnadore's performance as being below job expectations in Job
Knowledge, Initiative, Performance Improvement, Interpersonal
Skills, Attitude, Attendance, and Energy Systems Values and noted
that Mr. Varnadore had a negative attitude.  

     Mr. Wright recommended that Mr. Varnadore receive a "Needs
Improvement" Overall Performance Rating, and Dr. Shults, the
Director of the Analytical Chemistry Division, concurred with the
recommendation.  However, Martin Marietta's higher echelon
overrode the recommendation, giving Mr. Varnadore an "Extended
Absence" rating.  Consequently, Martin Marietta increased Mr.
Varnadore's salary by 3.7%, which became effective on March 1,
1993.  

     The hearing scheduled for May 17, 1994, in Knoxville,
Tennessee, will address Martin Marietta's Annual Performance
Review of Mr. Varnadore for the period of October 1, 1991, to
September 30, 1992, and Mr. Varnadore's subsequent March 1, 1993
3.7% salary increase.  In this regard, Mr. Varnadore's salary
associated with his performance appraisal for the period of
October 1, 1991, to September 30, 1992, remains in issue. 
Further, as Martin Marietta pointed out, that portion of the
complaint dealing with Mr. Varnadore's salary increase for the
period of October 1, 1991, to September 30, 1992, is res judicata

[PAGE 3]
and therefore is dismissed.


IT IS SO ORDERED.





                              ____________________________
                              DAVID A. CLARKE, JR.
                              Administrative Law Judge

Washington, D.C.
DAC/cal


[ENDNOTES]
           
[1] Mr. Varnadore's motion in limine was "to assure that
information about his long wait for a fair raise is admissible at
trial."  (Compl. Mtn. at 1.)  I will make no ruling at this
juncture as to whether Mr. Varnadore had a "long wait for a fair
raise," and since Mr. Varnadore did not specify the information
he wishes to introduce, I can make no ruling concerning
admissibility.