Lockheed Martin Discrimination Lawsuit, $29.5 Million Settlement, $7.5 Million for 1,000+ Employees

Lockheed Martin Corporation has agreed to pay approximately $29.5 million to resolve federal allegations that its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices led to race- and sex-based employment discrimination, and that it falsely certified compliance with anti-discrimination requirements in its federal contracts. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the settlement on November 3, 2026, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced its part on November 4.

The resolution has two separate parts:

Settlement component	Amount	Who receives it
DOJ False Claims Act settlement	$22 million	United States government
EEOC employee settlement	About $7.5 million	More than 1,000 affected Lockheed employees
Total	About $29.5 million	Government and affected employees

Former Lockheed vice president Tim Booher, who filed the whistleblower lawsuit, will receive $4.4 million from the $22 million DOJ payment. That is not on top of the $29.5 million.

What employees should know:

• The approximately $7.5 million covers an identified group of more than 1,000 affected employees.
• The EEOC has not publicly announced individual payment amounts.
• No public claim form or settlement portal has been announced.
• Not every current or former Lockheed employee qualifies.
• Lockheed denies wrongdoing and did not admit liability. No court found that the company violated the law.

This is a federal enforcement resolution, not a consumer class action settlement.

Quick Facts: United States ex rel. Booher v. Lockheed Martin and the EEOC Settlement

Detail	Information
Defendant	Lockheed Martin Corporation
Whistleblower case	United States ex rel. Tim Booher v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, No. 4:25-cv-00769-P (N.D. Tex.)
Qui tam filed	July 10, 2025
Government intervention	October 28, 2026 (in part)
DOJ announcement	November 3, 2026
EEOC announcement	November 4, 2026
DOJ payment	$22 million, inclusive of civil penalties; $10 million characterized as restitution
EEOC payment	About $7.5 million for more than 1,000 employees
Whistleblower share	$4.4 million (20% of the DOJ amount) plus a proportionate share of interest
Interest on DOJ payment	4% a year from October 5, 2026 until paid
Admission of liability	None
Individual payment amounts	Not published
Public claim form	None announced
Official announcements	DOJ release; EEOC release

What Is the Lockheed Martin Discrimination Lawsuit About?

The government alleged that Lockheed Martin took employees’ race and sex into account in important employment decisions, despite its duty to provide equal opportunity under federal law and its federal contracts. The conduct covered by the DOJ settlement dates to at least 2019. The federal investigation focused on a compensation program called Compensation Adder, and also covered hiring, promotions and training.

Did Lockheed Martin Discriminate Against White Employees?

The EEOC’s separate 2025 Commissioner’s Charge alleged race discrimination against white employees in performance assessments, additional compensation, bonus decisions and other compensation decisions. The roughly $7.5 million employee agreement resolves that charge. The DOJ investigation described a broader range of alleged practices involving race and sex. The settlement does not establish that every white employee was disadvantaged or that every minority employee received an improper benefit.

What Was Lockheed Martin’s Compensation Adder Program?

Beginning in 2021, Lockheed used the Compensation Adder to give selected employees an extra annual pay increase beyond the company’s across-the-board raise. The program targeted the top 20% of employees within each business area, with selections made within job levels. It set a cap, not a guarantee, so not everyone in the top 20% received an increase.

How Did the Government Say the Selection Process Changed?

According to the DOJ settlement agreement, managers first nominated employees on performance. Before final approval, the company analyzed the race and sex makeup of the selections. When a business unit’s selections triggered a demographic alert, HR was supposed to ask leaders to re-examine their merit-based reasoning. The government alleged that some HR personnel went further:

1. Managers were told to review nominations after alerts were triggered.
2. Some HR staff allegedly told managers to remove certain nonminority employees.
3. Managers were allegedly encouraged to add minority employees who were not originally nominated.
4. Some managers were allegedly directed to keep reviewing until the flags cleared.

The agreement quotes an HR employee describing the process as increasing people of color in the program while removing an equal number of nonminority employees, and another message about finding more people-of-color candidates to clear a flag. The allegation is that demographic measurements affected who actually got paid more.

What Other Employment Practices Did the DOJ Allege?

Race- and Sex-Based Hiring and Promotion Goals

The government alleged Lockheed set nonpublic workforce composition goals for some business units, tracking women and minorities, and that those goals were meant to influence hiring and promotion.

Management Incentive Metrics Tied to Demographics

According to the agreement, a Management Incentive Compensation Plan included a metric for meeting workforce demographic goals. Business units received quarterly reports with green (goal met), yellow (within one unit of the goal) and red (goal not met) indicators. The United States alleged these metrics influenced hiring and promotion decisions, and that 2023 company-wide hiring goals were described internally as “aspirational-plus.”

Training, Mentoring and Leadership Programs

The government alleged some training, mentoring and leadership opportunities were offered based on race or sex, including an Executive Leadership Diversity Mentoring program.

The agreement resolves these allegations without a court finding that any program or selection was unlawful.

What Did the DOJ and the EEOC Each Investigate?

• DOJ: Whether Lockheed violated anti-discrimination requirements in its federal contracts and falsely certified compliance while seeking payment. The DOJ also alleged that costs tied to these practices were allocated to government contracts and included in payment requests.
• EEOC: Whether employees were discriminated against in violation of Title VII. The probe started with a 2025 Commissioner’s Charge filed by EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, a formal way for an EEOC commissioner to start an investigation without an individual employee filing a charge.

The EEOC described the $7.5 million as the largest group recovery it has publicly announced involving alleged Title VII violations arising from or relating to DEI practices.

How Is the $29.5 Million Lockheed Martin Settlement Divided?

$22 Million to the Federal Government

Lockheed must pay the United States $22,000,000, inclusive of civil penalties, of which $10 million is restitution. It carries 4% annual interest from October 5, 2026, and is due within 14 days after the agreement’s effective date. The agreement’s signature pages show execution between October 29 and November 2, 2026. This is not a compensation fund for employees.

About $7.5 Million for More Than 1,000 Employees

The EEOC agreement provides more than $7.5 million for over 1,000 affected employees. The public announcement does not disclose who they are, the payment formula, minimum or maximum amounts, the date range for eligibility, whether payments will be equal, or a distribution schedule. There is no verified per-person estimate. Dividing $7.5 million by 1,000 and advertising $7,500 checks would be misleading, because the group is “more than 1,000” and the allocation is unpublished.

Tim Booher’s $4.4 Million Whistleblower Payment

Booher will receive $4.4 million from the $22 million DOJ amount, subject to the agreement’s payment conditions. Under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d), a relator’s share when the government intervenes generally ranges from 15% to 25%, and $4.4 million is 20% of $22 million. The agreement also gives him a proportionate share of interest.

Can Current and Former Lockheed Martin Employees Claim Money?

The EEOC announced compensation for more than 1,000 affected employees, but no open claim process has been published. Working at Lockheed does not make you eligible. The group is limited to workers identified as affected by the conduct covered by the Commissioner’s Charge, which alleged discrimination against white employees in performance assessments and compensation decisions. The eligibility list and allocation rules have not been published, so it would be wrong to say that every white employee, every former employee or everyone who worked at Lockheed between 2021 and 2026 qualifies.

Is There a Lockheed Martin Settlement Claim Form?

No public claim form, administrator or registration deadline has been announced in the DOJ or EEOC materials as of November 6, 2026. Affected employees should watch for direct communications from the EEOC or Lockheed, and should be cautious about websites or messages offering to “register” them for payment.

What If I Worked at Lockheed and Believe I Was Discriminated Against?

You may have your own right to file a charge. Title VII protects employees of every race and sex against discrimination in compensation, promotion, hiring and other decisions. The general EEOC filing deadline is 180 days after the discriminatory act, extended to 300 days where a state or local agency enforces a similar law (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1)). Federal employees and some other groups have different rules. This settlement does not extend the deadline for unrelated individual claims. Race discrimination in contracts, including employment, can also be challenged under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which has its own limitations rules and does not require an EEOC charge. EEOC time limits for filing a charge.

Does the Settlement Cover Rejected Job Applicants?

The DOJ’s allegations include hiring practices that affected applicants, but the $7.5 million is publicly described as relief for affected employees. The announcement does not describe a separate compensation program for rejected applicants.

Who Is Tim Booher, and Why Did He Sue Lockheed Martin?

Booher is a former vice president in Lockheed’s Combat Systems division. He is the relator, or whistleblower, in United States ex rel. Tim Booher v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, No. 4:25-cv-00769-P.

• May 2023: According to Associated Press reporting, he resigned because he believed he could no longer take part in what he considered discriminatory practices.
• July 2024: He reportedly met with EEOC Commissioner Andrea Lucas about Lockheed’s compensation and employment practices.
• 2025: The EEOC filed its Commissioner’s Charge.
• July 10, 2025: He filed his qui tam complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Such complaints are filed under seal while the government investigates and decides whether to intervene.
• October 28, 2026: The United States intervened in part.

The whistleblower case and the EEOC investigation overlapped factually but were separate proceedings.

What Did Lockheed Martin Say About the Settlement?

In its November 3, 2026 statement, Lockheed denied the allegations and said it settled to avoid the distraction and expense of prolonged litigation, and to stay focused on its national security mission. It said it remains committed to rewarding performance and following the law. The DOJ agreement states it is neither an admission of liability by Lockheed nor a concession by the government that its claims lacked merit. Lockheed’s statement.

What Laws Did Lockheed Martin Allegedly Violate?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2

Section 703(a) bars covered employers from discriminating in hiring, firing, compensation, promotion and terms and conditions of employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Section 703(d) covers apprenticeship and training programs, which is relevant to the mentoring allegations.

Does Title VII Protect White Employees?

Yes. McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 U.S. 273 (1976), confirmed Title VII protects white employees on the same terms as others. In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (U.S. June 5, 2025), the Supreme Court unanimously held that majority-group plaintiffs do not face a heightened “background circumstances” requirement. A diversity label does not excuse an otherwise discriminatory decision.

Title VII Section 703(m): Race as a Motivating Factor

Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m), a violation can be shown when race or sex was a motivating factor, even if other factors also played a role. If an employee was dropped from the Compensation Adder selections partly because of race, other performance reasons would not automatically defeat a claim.

Title VII Section 703(j) and Voluntary Affirmative Action

Section 703(j) says Title VII does not require preferential treatment to correct a workforce imbalance. The Supreme Court has allowed some narrow voluntary remedial plans (United Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979); Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S. 616 (1987)). Those cases do not make every race-conscious program lawful or every diversity effort illegal. The outcome depends on a program’s design, purpose and effect.

EEOC Commissioner’s Charges and Remedies

A Commissioner’s Charge is authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) and 29 C.F.R. § 1601.11. The EEOC may try to resolve a charge through conciliation. Title VII relief includes back pay and other equitable relief (§ 2000e-5(g)) and, for intentional discrimination, capped compensatory and punitive damages (42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3), up to $300,000 per person for employers with more than 500 employees). The public announcement does not say how the $7.5 million was allocated among these categories.

False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729

The False Claims Act (FCA) lets the government pursue anyone who knowingly submits false claims for federal payment or makes materially false statements connected to them. The DOJ alleged that Lockheed:

• Had to comply with anti-discrimination conditions in its federal contracts.
• Certified compliance.
• Maintained practices that allegedly discriminated by race or sex.
• Allocated costs of those practices to federal contracts.
• Sought payment or reimbursement for those costs.

A Title VII allegation does not alone establish an FCA violation. The government must also prove knowledge and materiality (Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 579 U.S. 176 (2016); United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc., 598 U.S. 739 (2023)). FCA liability generally means treble damages plus per-claim penalties, and the agreement resolved the claims without a judicial finding. The agreement also covers the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (31 U.S.C. § 3801 et seq.) and common-law theories.

FCA Whistleblower Provisions, 31 U.S.C. § 3730

A relator files a qui tam complaint under seal (§ 3730(b)(2)). The DOJ investigates and decides whether to intervene. If it does, it takes primary responsibility for the case, and the relator may receive 15% to 25% of the recovery (§ 3730(d)(1)). Section 3730(h) separately protects employees from retaliation for FCA-related activity. 31 U.S.C. § 3730.

Federal Contractor Equal Opportunity Requirements, 48 C.F.R. § 52.222-26

The FAR Equal Opportunity clause requires covered contractors to follow nondiscrimination obligations in hiring, promotion, compensation, termination and training. The DOJ said Lockheed’s contracts contained such obligations and that the company certified compliance. Contractor requirements changed in 2025, so the clause’s wording during the covered period and today should be checked. 48 C.F.R. § 52.222-26.

Executive Orders 14151 and 14173

Executive Order 14151 (January 20, 2025) directs the end of federal DEI programs and preferencing. Executive Order 14173 (January 21, 2025), “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” revoked Executive Order 11246 and requires federal contractors to certify that they do not operate programs promoting illegal DEI, and to agree that their compliance is material for FCA purposes. In May 2025, the DOJ launched a Civil Rights Fraud Initiative to pursue FCA cases against federal funding recipients who violate civil-rights laws. The EEOC says its Lockheed agreement requires compliance with Title VII and Executive Order 14151. These are conditions of this resolution, not a court ruling that DEI programs are unlawful in general. Executive Order 14151.

Cost Allowability, 48 C.F.R. § 31.205-47

This FAR provision limits what contractors can charge to the government for costs related to proceedings and settlements. It underlies the unallowable-cost terms in the DOJ agreement.

What Must Lockheed Martin Change Under the Settlement?

The DOJ agreement defines costs tied to the covered conduct as unallowable. They include costs of the covered practices, government audits and investigations, the company’s own investigation and defense, corrective action, related legal fees, and negotiating and performing the settlement. Lockheed cannot charge these directly or indirectly to federal contracts. Within 90 days of the effective date, it must identify and repay previously billed unallowable costs, and the government can audit the calculations.

Under the separate EEOC agreement, Lockheed must maintain a merit-based workplace in which race and sex are not considered in hiring, compensation, bonus or promotion decisions, and the EEOC may review compliance during the agreement’s term. The public announcement does not disclose the full duration or monitoring procedures.

What Does the $29.5 Million Settlement Actually Resolve?

The DOJ agreement resolves the government’s civil monetary claims for the defined covered conduct under the False Claims Act, the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act and specified common-law theories. It also resolves Booher’s claims on the qui tam action, subject to payment conditions. It preserves certain matters, including criminal liability, some administrative enforcement rights, individual liability, conduct outside the covered conduct, certain tax liabilities and obligations created by the settlement itself. After payment, the parties will file stipulations of dismissal with prejudice as the agreement provides. The EEOC agreement separately resolves the administrative Title VII charge. The two should not be treated as one court-approved class settlement.

Timeline of the Lockheed Martin Discrimination Case

Date	Development
2019	Start of the period covered by the DOJ settlement
2021	Lockheed introduces the Compensation Adder program
May 2023	Booher resigns, according to his reported account
July 2024	Booher reportedly meets with EEOC Commissioner Andrea Lucas
January 2025	Executive Orders 14151 and 14173 issued
May 2025	DOJ launches its Civil Rights Fraud Initiative
July 10, 2025	Booher files his qui tam lawsuit
2025	EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas files a Commissioner’s Charge
October 28, 2026	United States intervenes in part
October 29, 2026	Lockheed and Booher sign the DOJ agreement, per its signature pages
November 2, 2026	The United States signs
November 3, 2026	DOJ announces the $22 million settlement
November 4, 2026	EEOC announces the $7.5 million employee agreement

Is This the Same as the Richard Jones v. Lockheed Martin Lawsuit?

No. Richard Roland Jones III v. Lockheed Martin Corp., et al., No. 8:25-cv-02875 (D. Md.), is a separate individual case. Jones alleged racial and religious discrimination connected to his work as a fighter-pilot instructor and training operations manager at Misawa Air Base in Japan. On August 4, 2026, Judge Paula Xinis granted a partial motion to dismiss and denied leave to file a second amended complaint. She dismissed two 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims with prejudice, reasoning the alleged conduct occurred principally in Japan and the base is not U.S. territory for the statute’s purposes. It is not part of the $29.5 million resolution. August 4, 2026 opinion.

Lockheed Martin Discrimination Lawsuit: Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Lockheed Martin discrimination lawsuit settled?

The DOJ and EEOC announced a two-part resolution on November 3 and 4, 2026, totaling about $29.5 million. It is not an admission of liability or a finding of discrimination.

How much is Lockheed Martin paying?

About $29.5 million: $22 million to the federal government and about $7.5 million for more than 1,000 affected employees.

Will Lockheed employees receive the entire $29.5 million?

No. The $22 million goes to the United States. Only the roughly $7.5 million EEOC portion is identified as relief for employees.

How much will each affected employee receive?

Unknown. The EEOC has not published individual amounts or an allocation formula.

Can any Lockheed Martin employee claim the $7.5 million?

No. It covers an identified group of more than 1,000 affected employees, and working for Lockheed does not establish eligibility.

Is there a Lockheed Martin discrimination settlement claim form?

None has been announced in the official materials reviewed as of November 6, 2026.

Does the settlement cover white employees?

The EEOC’s Commissioner’s Charge alleged discrimination against white employees in performance assessments and compensation decisions. The public announcement does not provide an eligibility list or allocation rules.

Did Lockheed Martin discriminate against minority employees?

The DOJ’s allegations concern how race and sex were allegedly used in compensation, hiring, promotion and development decisions, not whether the company employed minority workers. Lockheed denies them, and the settlement does not find that any specific group was discriminated against.

What is the Compensation Adder program?

A 2021 incentive program giving selected employees an extra annual pay increase. The government alleges demographic reviews influenced the final selections.

Who filed the Lockheed Martin whistleblower lawsuit?

Tim Booher, a former vice president in the Combat Systems division, filed the qui tam action on July 10, 2025.

How much will Tim Booher receive?

$4.4 million plus a proportionate share of interest, paid from the $22 million DOJ settlement.

Did Lockheed Martin admit wrongdoing?

No. It denied the allegations and said it settled to avoid prolonged litigation.

What is the False Claims Act’s role?

The government alleged Lockheed falsely certified compliance with contract anti-discrimination requirements while maintaining practices that allegedly violated them. The FCA is the civil mechanism for knowingly false claims for federal payment.

Does this settlement make all DEI programs illegal?

No. Title VII bars unlawful employment decisions based on protected characteristics, but whether a given program is lawful depends on its purpose, design and operation. The settlement is not a blanket ban on diversity, recruitment or outreach.

Can a current or former employee still file a separate discrimination complaint?

Possibly, depending on the facts and deadlines. The EEOC’s filing period is generally 180 days, extended to 300 days in many states, and this settlement does not extend it.

Does this affect Lockheed Martin’s government contracts?

The agreement resolves defined certification allegations and makes certain costs unallowable. It does not announce cancellation of existing contracts.

When will affected employees receive their money?

No distribution date has been published. Rely on communications from official government or company channels.

What Does the Lockheed Martin Settlement Mean for Employees and Federal Contractors?

The government alleged that Lockheed certified compliance with federal anti-discrimination obligations while taking race or sex into account in employment decisions, which is what brought the False Claims Act into an employment dispute. For employees, the case shows that Title VII protects people of every race, and that calling a decision part of a diversity initiative does not shield it. The settlement does not hold that demographic analysis, outreach or every voluntary diversity program is unlawful. For contractors, it shows the need to review compensation, hiring, promotion, training and certification practices together, because contract certifications can create False Claims Act exposure.

For similar federal enforcement actions, see:

1. IBM $17M DEI Settlement, False Claims Act, What Workers Know
2. Accenture $25M False Claims Act Settlement Explained
3. El Dorado Furniture $1.3M EEOC Settlement, Who May Qualify?

These are separate matters with different employers, allegations and terms.

The Bottom Line on the Lockheed Martin $29.5 Million Settlement

Lockheed Martin agreed to a roughly $29.5 million resolution, including about $7.5 million for more than 1,000 affected employees. There is no universal employee claim form, no published individual payment estimate and no admission of liability. The employee group is limited to people identified as affected under the EEOC resolution.

Official Sources and Legal References

Government documents

1. DOJ, Lockheed Martin Agrees to Pay $22 Million Under the False Claims Act, November 3, 2026
2. Executed DOJ settlement agreement among the United States, Lockheed Martin and Tim Booher
3. EEOC, Lockheed Martin Agrees to Pay $29.5 Million, November 4, 2026
4. Lockheed Martin, Statement on Settlement Regarding Past Practices, November 3, 2026
5. Associated Press, Lockheed Martin to Pay $29.5 Million to Settle Federal Claims of Discrimination Against White Workers
6. Reuters, Lockheed to Pay Nearly $30 Million to Settle Administration Claims Over DEI Practices, November 4, 2026
7. GovInfo, Jones v. Lockheed Martin Corp., August 4, 2026

Employment discrimination law

8. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2
9. McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 U.S. 273 (1976)
10. United Steelworkers of America v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979)
11. Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S. 616 (1987)
12. Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (U.S. June 5, 2025); 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1981a, 2000e-5; 29 C.F.R. § 1601.11

Government contracting and whistleblower law

13. 31 U.S.C. § 3729
14. 31 U.S.C. § 3730
15. 48 C.F.R. § 52.222-26
16. Executive Order 14151; Executive Order 14173; 48 C.F.R. § 31.205-47; 31 U.S.C. § 3801 et seq.
17. Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 579 U.S. 176 (2016); United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc., 598 U.S. 739 (2023)

Employee rights

18. EEOC, Time Limits for Filing a Charge
19. EEOC, How to File a Charge of Employment Discrimination

Research note: The settlement terms, amounts, dates and the Compensation Adder allegations come from the executed DOJ agreement and the DOJ and EEOC announcements as described in the sources above. The separate EEOC agreement was not independently retrieved. No individual payment amount, claim process or finding of liability is presented as fact.

Disclaimer: This article is legal information, not legal advice, and AllAboutLawyer.com is not a law firm. The allegations resolved by the DOJ and EEOC agreements remain allegations, and the agreements and statutes control over this summary.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the DOJ and EEOC announcements, the executed DOJ settlement agreement, Lockheed Martin’s statement, Associated Press and Reuters reporting, and the cited federal statutes and regulations, as of November 6, 2026. Last Updated: November 6, 2026.