Age Discrimination Trial Date Set in Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC
by Gary Gwilliam on May 21, 2013
A trial date of September 9, 2013 has been set in the second phase of
our case Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory. Alameda County Superior Court Judge
Robert Freedman set the trial date at a May 16th hearing. In Phase One
of the trial, an Alameda County Jury returned a verdict in favor of the
first five plaintiffs in the case for breach of contract and breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The award is $2.7
million for plaintiffs Elaine Andrews, Marian Barraza, Mario Jimenez,
Greg Olsen, and James “Rocky” Torrice. The next phase involves age
discrimination claims.
Age Discrimination at Lawrence Livermore Lab
The
second phase of Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC
(LLNS) includes the first five test plaintiffs’ claims for age
discrimination. All 130 plaintiffs in this case have remaining claims
for age discrimination. The jury’s findings during the upcoming trial
will impact the remaining 125 plaintiffs’ age discrimination claims.
Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore Lab Hearing June 3, 2013
During
the initial May 16th hearing, attorneys for Lawrence Livermore National
Security LLC argued that they need considerable additional discovery
before they will be prepared to try the second phase of the case.
Included in this additional discovery are depositions of all 130
plaintiffs.
Although attorneys for LLNS attempted to persuade Judge
Freedman to delay the trial, he ordered the September 9, 2013 trial date
to remain on the calendar. In addition, Judge Freedman ordered a
further hearing on June 3, 2013 to discuss the logistical issues
involved in the age discrimination case.
Plaintiffs represented by
Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer are ready, willing, and
able to try the case on September 9, 2013.
Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer
If
you are interested in information regarding this case or if you have
questions about legal issues with your employment, please contact
attorney J. Gary Gwilliam or attorney Randall E. Strauss of the law firm
of Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer 510-832-5411.
10 comments:
Keep this information in your shirt pocket. Looks like they're asking for open communicatiion or insight to any past, present and future comings. Lines for 1-800-SNITCH are now open
If you are interested in information regarding this case or if you have questions about legal issues with your employment, please contact attorney J. Gary Gwilliam or attorney Randall E. Strauss of the law firm of Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer 510-832-5411.
http://www.independentnews.com/news/article_48170ce4-be5d-11e2-8f6e-0019bb2963f4.html
Posted: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:00 am
By Jeff Garberson
Awards to the five plaintiffs were: Elaine Andrews, $242,711; Marian Barraza, $443,299; Mario Jimenez, $853,010; Greg Olsen, $704,234; and James “Rocky” Torres, $485,783.
“We have proven that the layoff was conducted in bad faith,” Strauss said. “There’s no reason to believe future trials will come out differently in the case of other plaintiffs. They (the Laboratory) violated the contracts.
“We expect be able to prove that in court.”
This is amazing. As a 36+ year lab employee, I will say I know all of these individuals; some quite well.
In the case of one specific defendant, there was a low multi-year low performance problem. If our lab allowed and supported supervisors to fairly and correctly manage the performance of our employees, this individual could have been terminated, if that was their goal. Instead, the award the handshake of one's dreams.
This is an old lab story. Supervisors who attempted to use the process to separate low or poor performers were routinely marginalized, some branded as being too harsh, or having unrealistic expectations. When an action was taken, the employee can produce years of excellent PA's deflecting the issue and end any further future performance action for fear of being viewed as reprisal or retribution.
This entire problem rests at the feet of our leadership.
Dear 36+ year lab employee,
Do you really know all, especially one of the defendants? You do not mean "plaintiffs?"
One employee in particular who was "low-multi-year low performance problem." Do you mean this employee was at least a second level manager or he/she was an associated-director?
I saw more than one dead woods flow to the top at the LLNL.
I knew one of the plaintiffs too, and the person was a very hard working individual.
These "victories" were relatively minor, and the lawyers probably used their best cases first. Follow-on results may be much less. The lawyers have spent a lot of money on this case and need some luck to make it up.
"These "victories" were relatively minor, and the lawyers probably used their best cases first".
I am sure the Lab's legal defense team would not consider these just "minor victories". Unless you consider 2.7 million minor.
BTW, the first trial was for Breach of Contract only and therefore the law only allows damages for lost wages. That said, it appears they did very well.
The second trial is anyone's guess but trials are based on evidence not "luck".
With fees and windfall taxes, these winners share of the proceeds are small. Hardly worth a multiyear fight. It would have been better if they used their time to find another job or start a new b, for all these years.
"With fees and windfall taxes, these winners share of the proceeds are small. Hardly worth a multiyear fight".
I bet LLNS and its ULM just love your "Thanks, can I have another" attitude.
Really? So employees should never question the actions of their managers? Even when they are being escorted out the door? Even if they were found guilty of Breach of Contract and Bad Faith dealings... a legal fact, not my opinion.
Sounds like you are ULM...or maybe you just chose to work for liars and cheats.
"With fees and windfall taxes, these winners share of the proceeds are small. Hardly worth a multi-year fight".
Don't you worry, This was only the first part. Better and bigger parts are coming. I bet your idea is "identical" to the LLNS management's belief. That why the LLNS counted on laid off employees to "used their time to find another job or start a new job."
Ho1 Ho ! Ho1 it ain't happening as they have planned. They ain't seen much yet. These 5 "sample employees" are only a test. The rest of 125 are real. 5 factorial 125 factorial equal MANY VERY GOOD DAYS in COURT for these employees.
Post a Comment