BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Opinions not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Who paid for this settlement?

Who paid for this settlement?

Since LANL gets its funding from the federal government, maybe the taxpayers paid for the sexual harassment case settlement.

Anybody got a guess as to how much this cost?

http://www.abqjournal.com/462481/abqnewsseeker/lawsuit-over-sexual-harassment-at-los-alamos-lab-settled.html

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

In monetary terms it was cheaper than WIPP. In terms of loss reputation, well not much since LANL's reputation was very small to begin with. From the article it appears that police action (the restraining order) was the trigger to the forced retirement of Mr. Stanford. Since the Lab has settled we will not know how much or how little the Lab attempted to intervene in what appears to be repeated pattern over extended time.

And of course it is taxpayer money that funded the settlement. You don't see LANS or LLNS listed on the stock exchange and there is that limited liability clause which would prevent the bleeding from extending beyond the fence line.

Anonymous said...

I hope they all had a "happy ending",

Anonymous said...




Couple million is not out of the question.

Anonymous said...

"...And of course it is taxpayer money that funded the settlement..."

Did the settlement money come from DOE/NNSA or out of the contractors service fee/profit? Limited liability is not zero liability, it's just capped.

Anonymous said...

Whether or not DOE/NNSA or LANS paid the settlement, it is taxpayer money. The limited liability means that you can't go beyond LANS and go after UC or Bechtel etc. You can only go after the funds that LANS has. Not a zero liability but it is capped in the sense that it is firewalled from the parent companies.

Now as to which pocket, one would hope that it comes out of LANS' hide unless the action was somehow approved by NNSA or that NNSA knew of the problem and failed to stop it. Maybe LANS would be hit with a double whammy, the court judgement followed next year with NNSA cutting the bonus portion of the contract fee. Pain is the only motivator in this case.

Anonymous said...

"...How is causing pain to LANS going to stop the actions of an _____ like the one who committed the assault?..."

Unless LANSLLNS managers are fired or swiftly removed from management roles for unacceptable performance, dollar penalties are the only, and I mean only, action that materially motivates business practice change at these two labs.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Blog Archive