Anonymously contributed:
Judge dismisses Livermore lab retirees' lawsuit
Transfer of retiree health plan deemed legal
By Suzanne Bohan
Contra Costa Times
Posted: 06/07/2011 03:17:40 PM PDT
Updated: 06/08/2011 06:18:40 AM PDT
A three-year legal battle by Lawrence Livermore Laboratory retirees over medical benefits has sustained a major setback, according to a spokesman for the plaintiffs.
In a lawsuit against the regents of the University of California, four lab retirees argued that UC illegally transferred them into the health care plan of the entity that took over lab management from the university in 2007.
But on May 27, an Oakland judge dismissed the lawsuit.
The four plaintiffs, including a former associate lab director, are deciding whether they'll appeal.
"This is, of course, very disappointing news for the retiree group," said Carl Whitaker, the group's spokesman.
The group asserted that UC promised them lifetime health benefits comparable to other university retirees.
The plaintiffs, along with other lab retirees, pooled $150,000 for legal fees. They'll need another $75,000 to appeal, according to Joe Requa, a former lab computer scientist who has led the legal challenge.
Lawrence Livermore National Security -- a for-profit corporation that includes Bechtel Corp., Babcock & Wilcox Co. and others -- assumed lab management in 2007. Before that, UC had run the lab since its inception in 1952.
About 5,000 Livermore lab retirees and 2,500 spouses and dependents were transferred to the new lab management's retiree health plan. The retirees argue that LLNS's plan is inferior to that of other UC retirees, and that they should be reinstated into UC's plan.
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch disagreed.
The plaintiffs didn't deliver evidence of "a binding contract" guaranteeing them health benefits "equal to those provided to other UC retirees," the judge wrote. Nor was their assertion of major financial injury upheld. Roesch wrote that the switch from one retiree health plan to another isn't "an injury so severe" as to require court intervention.
Charles Robinson, UC's vice president and general counsel for legal affairs, stated in an email that UC "is pleased that the judge acknowledged that the university's transfer of responsibility" for retiree medical benefits "was legal and appropriate."
Nuclear warriors shafted again. Asked by the leaders in DC to dedicate their lives and careers to protecting the country (sometimes at great peril to personal safety and health), and operating in relative anonymity for the entire time, UC (and DOE and LANS and LLNS), with the blessing of the courts, have decided our contribution wasn't worthy of making good on the promises they made to us. They decided that WE UC retirees weren't worth as much as other UC retirees at other campuses, like the professors who teach ridiculous and irrelevant subjects (Sanskrit?). Just imagine what the public reaction would be if the VA reneged on promises to veterans, or if cities reneged on promises to firefighters, police, or even teachers. Why, there would be an outpouring into the streets, protests, and general outrage. But the nuclear warriors? Tough shit, I guess. Maybe we SHOULD have had a union, with a giant PR machine, just like the firefighters, police, and teachers have, after all.
9 comments:
Do an evaluation of judge Frank Roscher at:
http://courthouseforum.com/forums/evaluationtrial.php
I recall many times after joining the lab that UC said they did not "guarantee" health care benefits but had "every intention" of providing them. The statement was in almost every UC health care document I recall reading. I guess the UC lawyers were more prescient than the employees were. Being treated badly and being upset about it is not necessarily grounds for a lawsuit, it appears. UC's lawyers protect their employer, and they are the best money can buy. It is obvious that UC never considered LLNL and LANL employees to be "real" UC employees and was glad to be rid of them, even after retirement. Not truly academics, you see.
A better question is whether UC can treat SOME of its retirees one way, and OTHER retirees another. It's one thing to say "retirement medical benefits are not guaranteed." It's another to say "retirement benefits for SOME of you will be reduced in comparison with those of others." After all, they recognize that they "owe" us all retirement income, they continue to pay us through UCRP. But medical? UC dodged that expense and obligation because DOE let them out of it. And now the courts have backed them up. People who NEVER worked for LANS or LLNS are affected because of these fools' inability to negotiate health benefits for retirees like UC can. And do you think LANS/LLNS management cares? Really? The UC retirees medical benefits they were forced to administer in order to get the management contracts are probably treated as a complete burden by them. The whole thing smacks of discrimination. Perhaps that's the legal course to take. Gee, if women or minorities were singled out by UC for "different" retirement benefits, you'd hear lots of screaming and see lots of SUCCESSFUL lawsuits over that. But discriminate against UC/LANL/LLNL retirees? Nobody seems to care.
What did you expect from UC, this is a typical outcome from the “Old Boys,” circling their wagons in order to protect their resources! A while back there were several articles in the newspaper alleging that UC Counsel Charles Robinson, and several other senior UC Managers, were calling foul play about some benefits due to them. Cleary their needs supersede the needs of all others. The students, and we as LLNL retirees end up picking up the burden. The retirees by the denial of our medicals benefits to be administrated by UC and the students with consistent Tuition and Fee increases.
On the other hand, UC continues to recklessly allow the “Double Dippers” to take advantage of the system, (e.g. the now retired UC Berkeley Chief who took a lump sum retirement, changed her mind and switched to monthly allotments, while at the same time remaining at Berkeley under contract. That situation resulted in the involvement of the California State Legislation… What a travesty of justice)!
Yes, the “Ivy Tower” is steadfast in their efforts to take care of their own and the chosen ones, while the rest of us stockholders continue to suffer.
Probably not a surprising result. UC did what it could do. The plaintiffs never really had a legal case. Unfair does not mean illegal. Too many people want to be treated "fairly" as if they were kindergarteners crying "no fair!". In all things, self-reliance is key. Depend on someone else, or some other entity, and you set yourself up for failure.
Under UC, as now for LANS and LLNS, when you reach 65, you must sign up for Medicare. There aren't many pre-for profit retirees who aren't yet eligible for Medicare. All those over 65 are now in Medicare with some supplemental program, either LANS/LLNL or private. The result is essentially the same no matter which. If you think the UC supplemental program is so much better than any other available to you, I haven't heard evidence.
I didn't think that Joe Requa et al would win this. The hand writing on the wall was seen early in the case when the judge was asking for more evidence showing that UC had indeed committed itself to providing a plan forever. Since there was a large population of people who had retired long before the contract change and they were on the UC's plans, it was ASSUMED by most of us, and I count myself in that category, that medical retirement was just like the retirement plan - good forever.
The big problem here is that there is probably a significant number of retirees that do not qualify for Medicare. Those that started prior to 1977 were not contributing to SS and Medicare.
June 12, 2011 9:04 PM is correct that under UC when you reached 65 you were required to sign up for Medicare. The important distinction here is that UC would fill in the gap for what Medicare did not cover, and if you didn't qualify for Medicare the UC plan was covering the entire burden.
I am one of those that started before 1977 and did not pay into Medicare. Since the contract change I have been doing so, and combined with credits I earned before starting with the lab, I HOPE that I'll qualify for Medicare by the time I retire. If not, I'll be in the same boat as the current retirees. And all of this assumes that Medicare will be there in the future, something else that we thought that was a guarantee which might go poof.
Welcome to the real world of corporate America.
Next on the chopping block -- the gold plated pensions of weapon lab workers. Yeah, it's coming. Deal with it.
With respect to employees at the Lab Fire Department, including Fire Dispatch, they got "hosed" (no pun intended) in the deal also. Forced to leave the UC retirement system and join Calpers, downgraded medical retirement and other benefits. The dispatch center remains unrepresented by any union though I believe the Fire Fighters were given the mandatory option to join the Alameda County Fire Fighters union. Didn't help.
I am an ex contractor of the lab. After two serious accidents which was not my fault. I have suffered for twenty years. Passed 11 kidney stones, two kidney cycsts, glaucoma, and skin cancer. Lost my home of fourteen years. Lost family members support who couldnt understand my illnesses. Now I am bankrupt and homeless, alone at 53 on the streets of the town I have lived in for thirty three years. Filed a claim with the EEOCIPA in March of 2014 . Still waiting on help. I almost died on the streets with a 11 mm stone in my Uretha. Hospitalized twice this year.75 thousand billed to Medicare. I should be retired and now I deliver pizzas. The only asset left is my car. Talk about hardship! I would of never taken a job at LLNL in 84 if I new I would become the lab rat. Now I sit with my supervisor in the support group with other dieing lab workers. Sick witth many different cancers. Is this fair or sacrifice of lives. Get a clue. Greedy, Greedy, Greedy people dont care about lives they loose. Look how they treat our veterans of wars. No justice for all. Just a big fat boot or gag orders. When you sign a Q clearence its like signing your death warrant. Good luck future lab workers. Hope you live past sixty five.
Post a Comment