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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days
-
LGBT intolerance problem at Sandia? I was just checking glassdoor.com and noticed several comments suggesting intolerance to LGBT at Sandia...
-
So did you SSVSP and why? Give details.
-
“Raise a concern, get blackballed then lose your job and benefits…” “…instead of raising your concerns just leverage on your skills and go t...
7 comments:
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.
I hope they all had a "happy ending",
Couple million is not out of the question.
"...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.
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.
"...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.
Post a Comment