Livermore, California – December 12, 2019 – After ten years of hard fought litigation and two victories at the California Court of Appeal, University of California retirees who worked at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) have reached an $84.5 million settlement with The Regents of the University of California over the termination of their University-sponsored health care benefits.
Sunday, December 15, 2019
$84 Million Settlement with University of California Over Termination of UC Medical Benefits
Livermore, California – December 12, 2019 – After ten years of hard fought litigation and two victories at the California Court of Appeal, University of California retirees who worked at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) have reached an $84.5 million settlement with The Regents of the University of California over the termination of their University-sponsored health care benefits.
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...
42 comments:
Glad that the LLNL UCRP retirees won this suit over the termination and transfer of their UC retiree health care benefits. From my knowledge of the facts of this case, it seemed like a slam-dunk case for the LLNL UCRP retirees and I'm surprised that UC even attempted to terminate and transfer their health benefits. Seems like their lawyers should have clearly told UC that it wasn't a good idea and that they would only be inviting a lawsuit that they would lose.
-Doug
I suspect Doug is correct and that the UC lawyers did warn the Regents. But I also suspect that UC and DOE counted on no-one being able to mount and sustain the required legal effort. UC and DOE dragged this thing out for twelve years. Retiree legal fees were in excess of $12 million (paid by UC)and UC's were probably comparable. UC probably danced to DOE's tune in hope of being reimbursed for fees and damages.
So what does this precedent mean for LANL, where the same thing happened?
Congrats to the folks that fought this battle, one of whom I knew. I wonder how many people suffered and died in the 12 years this fight lasted?
About 2500 (out of 9000) are dead since the transition to LLNS. Any benefits for the deceased will pass to their heirs.
I hope UC and the Triad gang learn a simple lesson from this. They aren’t dealing with a bunch of cowboy buttheads. No, these people have brains, means, and determination sufficient to screw the mighty UC system to the wall. I applaud them.
"UC probably danced to DOE's tune in hope of being reimbursed for fees and damages."
Seems plausible. After all, DOE/NNSA reimbursed LLNS about 23 million for litigation expenses to fight the 2008 130 or so laid off LLNS employees that filed a class action lawsuit. Why then wouldn't UC, another DOE/NNSA contractor, request that DOE/NNSA reimburse them for litigation expenses related to UC's decision(?) to push the medical coverage of UC/LLNL retirees to LLNS?
The decision to push UC/LLNL retiree employee medical coverage to LLNS, a company they never worked for, was not likely made without an unequivocal thumbs up from DOE/NNSA and LLNS beforehand.
The decision to push UC/LLNL retiree employee medical coverage to LLNS, a company they never worked for, was not likely made without an unequivocal thumbs up from DOE/NNSA and LLNS beforehand.
12/18/2019 8:01 PM
Changes like that have to be approved by the DOE. Likely all the way to HQ.
"Changes like that have to be approved by the DOE. Likely all the way to HQ."
DOE Contractors make substantial profits to manage the labs and are practically guaranteed litigation reimbursements from DOE to fight employees as needed. Treating the lab workforce like a disposable commodity isn't in strategic alignment with the substantial recruiting goals at the doorstep of the DOE/NNSA. In terms of accomplishing DOE mission objectives, this is a race to the bottom.
Lots of comments here by people who obviously had no connection to LLNS or LANS at the transition, or were too young to pay attention to the transfer to the new contractors of UC benefits for continuing employees (and for retirees in the care of health care). It is a shame that no one remembers the role of Pete Domenici in screwing UC employees.
I do not disagree that it is a race to the bottom but the DOE is the one pushing it. Contractors cannot make these decisions unilaterally. They aren’t even allowed to have a lay-off of more than 50 people without DOE approval. In fact, DOE uses contractors as scape goats for their unfavorable changes.
Which of the commenters does Anonymous 12/21/2019 5:33PM think "obviously had no connection to LLNS or LANS"?
The ones who post comments that are counter-factual about UC/LLNS/LANS history.
Which comments have you identified as counter-factual?
"It is a shame that no one remembers the role of Pete Domenici in screwing UC employees.
12/21/2019 5:33 PM"
Ah, let me rephrase for the proper context:
It is a shame that no one remembers the role Pete Domenici played in screwing me personally. Oh and UC screwed me, the people of LANL screwed me, science in general screwed me and reality itself screwed me. I am not bitter, I am honest and will always give the context to may statements, I never generalize my personal situation to all of reality because only I exist and I am right. Let me reiterate I AM NOT BITTER.
Whatever Domenici's role was, under all circumstances UC should have stood by its obligations to its employees and retirees - whether at LBNL, LLNL, LANL or elsewhere. LLNL and LANL retirees clearly believe they failed. LLNL retirees were able to get a settlement. At this point it is unclear how much money DOE is throwing in. As a public entity I think UC will eventually have to reveal how much money this settlement will actually cost UC.
As a real LLNL retiree I cheer the recent good news and hope it continues to hold through any further legal proceedings.
I have felt that LLNL, Bechtel, and DOE all had a part in shafting the retirees by reneging on our health-care benefits. It was a promise made to us, given in text and verbally to us all with enough clarity and widespread repetition that we expected that promise to be upheld. UC could have grandfathered us into their program, but turned their backs on us. Bechtel could have included us in their corporate umbrella, but chose not to. DOE could have objected to this mistreatment, but remained silent.
Having endured the hell that is today's Social Security with it's mind-numbing bureaucracy I can honestly say I am bitter. But those feelings are being channeled towards making things better, including supporting the LLNL retiree lawsuit. It's turning a bad situation into something we all can find some benefit in.
At this point it is very unlikely that there will be any changes to the settlement. Class reps for the class and UC have both signed off. The judge hearing the case will eventually hear any objections from class members. The judge herself could separately object. But after such a long settlement process, I doubt the judge will change anything. As to "DOE could have objected to this mistreatment", DOE was likely the one demanding the change to retiree benefits. UC was the one who should have said no.
You can all thank Bill Clinton for ending nuclear weapon testing, and reducing the design labs to playgrounds for toys. Until that decision is reversed by someone whose elevator runs all the way to the top, actual real stewardship of our nuclear deterrent will continue to decay into the detritus of numerics. Expect your rewards for pulling the load to follow the same trajectory.
Having endured the hell that is today's Social Security with it's mind-numbing bureaucracy I can honestly say I am bitter.
12/23/2019 11:57 PM
This is hard for me to understand. As a LLNL retiree, you have a decent pension, and probably a 403b, and also qualify for Social Security as well (unless you opted out in the early - mid 70's, bad mistake). So what is the problem with SS? I signed up just this year sine I turned 70 and had no further reason to delay, I found no problems at all with SS if you are willing to do a bit of your own homework.
"You can all thank Bill Clinton for ending nuclear weapon testing"
I am absolutely no fan of Clinton, but he did not end nuclear testing by the U.S. That was done in 1992 under Bush. If you want to blame Clinton for something almost as bad if not worse - Hazel O'Leary.
12/24/2019 5:03
What is the problem with SS? Let's both agree first on what we are talking about. The health care arm of Social Security being Medicare. The other part, ordinary Social Security I have no quibble with. Besides, I have sufficient income outside TCP1 funds. Doing your homework helps in dealing with Medicare, but only so far.
Firstly there is the donut hole. Have enough prescriptions and you'll learn all about how this so-called insurance will fail you simply because you're not yet poverty-stricken. So you have to add further coverage on your own dime - all instead of what our UC-promised coverage would have provided.
Try calling Medicare about getting something approved or changed. Every time you do your wife will need to hand the phone off for you "prove" your identity and give permission for her to interact on your behalf. No record kept of my approval, so every damn time the same idiotic questions.
Then when at the doctor's office listen carefully to how they make decisions on treatment based on what Medicare will pay for. Not what is best for you but what some government type has declared worthy. Try calling to get an alternative approved, usually it's a battle royal.
In short, expect to be treated like you are some lowly peasant, not like a client.
I am absolutely no fan of Clinton, but he did not end nuclear testing by the U.S. That was done in 1992 under Bush.
12/25/2019 2:11 PM
Bush only unilaterally paused testing. Clinton formally ended it with the (yet to be ratified) CTBT.
LANL retirees have access to the BC/BS national medicare supplement that is a Medigap policy covering all deductibles and copays for medicare-covered care, and also includes a prescription drug plan with no "donut hole."
That there are happy LANL retirees is entirely irrelevant to LLNL class members. Medigap plan costs vary from area to area. How much support LANL provides retirees
(and the resulting cost to retirees) is not necessarily the same as LLNL. The appropriate cost metric is how much class members pay in comparison with UC retirees. Additionally there is a large issue of security. LLNL retiree health (and LANL) is governed by PERS. LLNL could easily drop all retiree and employee health support. UC is not governed by PERS and could not.
12/28/2019 11:13 AM
You are ill-informed on several counts. LANL retiree health is governed by the DOE/Triad contract and administered by Triad. Your continued use of the term "class members" indicates you view everything through the litigation lens instead of the reality lens. PERS has absolutely nothing to do with LANL/TRIAD retiree health. LANL/Triad retiree health is governed by contract requirements with DOE, not any NM State agency.
LANL retiree health might be provided by Triad, but LLNL health is provided by LLNS. There is no requirement that benefits be the same (though I expect them to be comparable). LLNL retirees chose to act when their benefits were arbitrarily changed. I pointed out why class members were concerned. LANL retirees chose not to act so what LANL retirees now receive is irrelevant to class members. Both Triad and LLNS are for-profit entities and how they deal with health benefits is governed by ERISA, federal law (I mistakenly typed PERS). As stated Triad and LLNS could conceivably greatly reduce or eliminate coverage. The only reality in this matter is that DOE (through Triad and LLNS) can largely do what it wants in terms of health benefits. UC is much more closely restrained.
12/30/2019 11:24 AM
Again, you are ignoring the requirements of the DOE/NNSA contracts signed by both LLNS and Triad. Those contractual requirements for retiree health care are legally binding on both contractors.
I am not sure how that affects anything. DOE is going to do what it wants. You seem to sing the praises of your retiree health benefits. I certainly don't know if your happiness extends to all LANL retirees. I do know that many LLNL retirees are unhappy with LLNL retiree health benefits - especially in comparison with UC retiree health benefits, especially for non-Medicare retirees over 65. Class members sought a return to UC health, for better or worse. The settlement doesn't achieve return, but provides some benefits. LLNL class members wish the Good Ship LANL, Bon Voyage! as it sails off into the sunset.
Perhaps I’ve been taking the wrong approach in trying to explain the irrelevance of LANL retirees, DOE contracts and some undefined wider reality. To achieve the goal of class reinstatement, counsel for the class decided to sue UC in California court on behalf of LLNL retirees. The suit was against UC and not DOE, LLNS or LLNL. Any contract between DOE and UC, LLNS, Triad was hence irrelevant and not mentioned in court. The class was limited to LLNL retirees. Including LANL retirees would have been a complication and it was LLNL retirees paying for the suit. So LANL retirees were irrelevant. Whatever the wider reality was it did not enter into the litigation.
Please explain why there are non-Medicare retirees over 65. They can always take Medicare and be done with any lab retiree benefit except the Medigap policy, which is great. This does not make sense.
The over-65 non-Medicare are those retirees who did not coordinate with Social Security when the University offered that election in 1976 an 1977 and who did not obtain Medicare coverage through other work or through spousal benefits. There are fewer than 500 at LLNL, probably about the same at LANL. (Prior to 1976 all University employees were non-Medicare.) For some reason LLNL Medicare-Kaiser accepts non-Medicare retirees who are then required to pay for Part B coverage but are not required to pay for Part A coverage. I suspect enrollment in any other Medicare (Medigap)program would require both Part A coverage and Part B coverage. Part A is ordinarily free to Medicare eligible, but non-Medicare can buy it at about ~$600/month. Even for Kaiser where one would only pay for Part B, the income based Part B cost (that’s how Medicare works) makes Medicare-Kaiser much more expensive than non-Medicare Kaiser except for those with very low incomes. Choosing a Mediganp program would be worse - Obamacare would be cheaper.In general LLNL seems to be making the costs to over-65 non-Medicare punitively high in comparison with LLNL under-65, LLNL Medicare or UC over-65 non-Medicare. I haven’t looked at LANL costs in a long while.
This sounds way too convoluted to be true - there is an understanding gap somewhere. I suspect the author is not really familiar with Medicare programs in general, and certainly not with Medicare supplemental insurance. If people who chose non-coordination with Social Security many decades ago are now facing unforeseen negative consequences of that choice, why is that someone else's fault?
You asked why there are non-Medicare retirees over 65. I explained why. You complained that it was way too convoluted so it couldn't be true. [Insert LANL joke here.] Read the LLNL, LANL and UC retiree booklets. Call your retiree office. Read the relevant SS pages. Point out my errors. The settlement partially makes up for LLNL alone (among UC, LLNL and LANL) singling out its non-Medicare over-65 retirees with much higher rates.
" If people who chose non-coordination with Social Security many decades ago are now facing unforeseen negative consequences of that choice, why is that someone else's fault?"
When the UC coordinated with Social Security RETIREMENT plan was introduced and offered to people with UC only (and possibly PERS) I distinctly remember that the person from HR stating that unless you had credit already accrued with Social Security and you were close to retirement, it was not a good thing to switch over. No mention of the HEALTH benefits was made. They pointed out this was for RETIREMENT and the health benefits were from UC. This type of statement and the other implied statements made by HR and UC gave the appearance that medical benefits in retirement were UC and only when the contract change came in 2007 was the "definitive" statement of medical benefits are provided by the contractor - a shock to all of us.
I was too young to retire at the contract change and when the change came, I was forced to pay into Social Security from the start of the contract change. I was fortunate that I had hours credited to Social Secutiry before I started my career at the lab and I did qualify for Medicare. Had I not, I would have been in a real bad situation since I would not have qualified for the lawsuit.
Non-Medicare retirees got that way by refusing at an early age to coordinate their pensions with Social Security, hoping to get more money. They lost their bet. Too bad. Why is that someone else's fault now?
5:13 says that the non Medicare retirees refused to coordinate their PENSIONS with social security. That is the crux of the matter. When the conversion option was presented in 1976-77 we were told this concerned the PENSION, not the medical benefits. That is why the retirees sued and WON - we were told the pension and the medical were separate issues and that the medical was to be supplied by UC. Why did UC eventually give up on the issue - because they knew they had implied to the Livermore employee that their medical issues would be taken care of by UC. The retirement PENSION was a totally different issue, at least that is how it was presented to us at that time. Was it someone else's fault - well UC did give up on the suit, what does that tell you?
Were we hoping that we'd get more money? YES. And HR told us that unless we were close to retirement and could garner more money with coordination - we'd be better off sticking with UC only. Maybe you're viewing this with 2019 eyeglasses, I am telling you what I heard and what I "Knew" in 1976.
Previous comments bad-mouthing the non-medicare over 65 retirees are based on incomplete and erroneous information. At one time public sector employees everywhere were not coordinated with social security, if they were part of an employers retirement system. California school teachers were and are still not coordinated with social security, and if they receive a benefit from other work their STRS benefit is reduced dollar for dollar. The UC and the DOE benefited for years not having to pay employer social security taxes.
Don't assume what is now is the same as what was then. For me, if I elected to coordinate I would have deserved a brain transplant. I would have continued to contribute to UCRS, but at a lower rate, and my retirement benefit would have reduced by the amount of any SS benefit. There was no discussion of health care, if Medicare existed then it was invisible. Coordination made sense if an older employee had other SS coverage and was planning to retire within 10 years.
Anyone who was paying attention in 1976-77 knew that Social Security and Medicare were inextricably connected, just as they are today. Nothing has changed about that. You played a game and lost because of lack of knowledge, and naivete made you think you were gaming the system. The rest of us played by the rules.
6.29
What rules are you referring to? I infer that you are also 5.13. The only person at fault is UC for not delivering what it promised.
The only person at fault is UC for not delivering what it promised.
1/08/2020 11:49 AM
What adult believes "promises?"
Post a Comment