Anonymously contributed:
130 Former Lawrence Livermore Lab Employees File Lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court Alleging Illegal Age Discrimination
OAKLAND, Calif., May 21 /PRNewswire/ -- On May 21, 2009, the Law Firm of Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer filed an age discrimination lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court Case Number 09453596 on behalf of 130 former employees against Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS) , the private company co-owned by Bechtel and the University of California that operates the Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
On May 22 and 23, 2008, LLNS laid off approximately 440 employees, the vast majority of whom were the Lab's most senior, experienced employees. California law prohibits discrimination in the workplace against any employee who is over the age of 40 years old, based upon that employee's age. 130 of those employees have retained Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer to challenge the layoffs. These former Lab employees include administrative assistants, maintenance workers, engineers and senior scientists. The 130 employees filed one lawsuit, but are seeking damages based upon their individual circumstances. These are consolidated cases; it is not a class action lawsuit.
The former employees contend that they were selected by the Lab to lose their jobs because they were older workers (over 40) who were approaching their retirement age. As a result, these former employees are out of work at a stage in life when finding new employment is particularly challenging. Most of these workers have suffered a severe financial hit in the amount of retirement income and benefits they will eventually receive because of their forced, premature "retirement."
The laid off workers contend that the Layoff selection process utilized by the Lab was illegal. The former employees contend that the Lab did not follow Federal Law by seeking voluntary separations to eliminate the need for any layoffs.
Furthermore, approximately 94% of those laid off were over the age of 40, making them "protected employees" pursuant to California's anti-age discrimination laws. The Lab ignored its own polices to target these older workers because of their advanced salaries and approaching retirements.
Today, these targeted older workers are fighting back by filing this lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court.
According to J. Gary Gwilliam, lead counsel for the former employees, "It's unfortunate that the Lawrence Livermore Lab, the University of California and Bechtel Corporation would treat their employees in a discriminatory manner. I don't think the Department of Energy, with whom they contract, would approve of such conduct. These entities should be setting the highest standards of fairness in the workplace, not the lowest. We are confident the Court will correct this obvious injustice."
In addition, several different plaintiffs allege different kinds of discrimination including race, gender, disability, family leave rights and sexual orientation as well as retaliation. The complaint also alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract and the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
CONTACTS: For more information and a copy of the complaint please contact J. Gary Gwilliam, Esq., Randall E. Strauss, Esq., Jane Felice Gorelick
Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer, A Prof Corp.
1999 Harrison Street, Oakland, California
(510) 832-5411
130 Former Lawrence Livermore Lab Employees File Lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court Alleging Illegal Age Discrimination
OAKLAND, Calif., May 21 /PRNewswire/ -- On May 21, 2009, the Law Firm of Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer filed an age discrimination lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court Case Number 09453596 on behalf of 130 former employees against Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS) , the private company co-owned by Bechtel and the University of California that operates the Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
On May 22 and 23, 2008, LLNS laid off approximately 440 employees, the vast majority of whom were the Lab's most senior, experienced employees. California law prohibits discrimination in the workplace against any employee who is over the age of 40 years old, based upon that employee's age. 130 of those employees have retained Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer to challenge the layoffs. These former Lab employees include administrative assistants, maintenance workers, engineers and senior scientists. The 130 employees filed one lawsuit, but are seeking damages based upon their individual circumstances. These are consolidated cases; it is not a class action lawsuit.
The former employees contend that they were selected by the Lab to lose their jobs because they were older workers (over 40) who were approaching their retirement age. As a result, these former employees are out of work at a stage in life when finding new employment is particularly challenging. Most of these workers have suffered a severe financial hit in the amount of retirement income and benefits they will eventually receive because of their forced, premature "retirement."
The laid off workers contend that the Layoff selection process utilized by the Lab was illegal. The former employees contend that the Lab did not follow Federal Law by seeking voluntary separations to eliminate the need for any layoffs.
Furthermore, approximately 94% of those laid off were over the age of 40, making them "protected employees" pursuant to California's anti-age discrimination laws. The Lab ignored its own polices to target these older workers because of their advanced salaries and approaching retirements.
Today, these targeted older workers are fighting back by filing this lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court.
According to J. Gary Gwilliam, lead counsel for the former employees, "It's unfortunate that the Lawrence Livermore Lab, the University of California and Bechtel Corporation would treat their employees in a discriminatory manner. I don't think the Department of Energy, with whom they contract, would approve of such conduct. These entities should be setting the highest standards of fairness in the workplace, not the lowest. We are confident the Court will correct this obvious injustice."
In addition, several different plaintiffs allege different kinds of discrimination including race, gender, disability, family leave rights and sexual orientation as well as retaliation. The complaint also alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract and the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
CONTACTS: For more information and a copy of the complaint please contact J. Gary Gwilliam, Esq., Randall E. Strauss, Esq., Jane Felice Gorelick
Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer, A Prof Corp.
1999 Harrison Street, Oakland, California
(510) 832-5411
Comments
And, no age discrimination is not all that hard to prove. The numbers will speak for themselves. What will be interesting is how LLNS tries to justify the numbers. Many of the laid off were maneuvered into the lower/lowest peer groups in the years leading up to the RIF, despite the fact of never getting a negative review. The scuttlebutt going around prior to the layoff was that HR would be very careful to assure that no group was singled out to avoid such legal actions. Given the competence of many of their other efforts, I have little faith that they succeeded.
LLNS’s plan might be to hold the lawsuit off long enough to get as much bonus money for the ULM as possible, then disband the limit liability company and let DOE pick up the tab. I am not sure if it would work, but I would not put it past them.
BTW-people who are part of the lawsuit should not write to this or any blog. These things have a way of showing up in court, especially in a civil court of law.
Good luck
If they don't take the cash, they'll be told this thing could be stuck in the courts for many years. Most of them will decide to take the money and sign on the dotted line to never sue LLNS again. Being unemployed, they badly need the extra cash to survive.
IF
[majority of the LLNL employees are over 55],
And
[group of laid off employees]= [majority of people over 55]
… it does NOT follow that there’s age discrimination.
Gets back to: what are the numbers, and what can you prove with the given set of numbers
(assuming you're using 'numbers' to prove age. disc.)
From the unofficial list of people I saw that were laid off, I don't see how that 94% figure can be claimed, unless a large number of those with under 10 years of service started at the lab in their 30's.
I don't have the data, but it seems like the 130 should all be over 40 years of age, else they should not be filing 'age discrimination'... Therefore(?) the 94% should be of the 440 total. Can anyone confirm this ?
There were some mistakes. Comp Div. Ldrs had no idea what their people did. Too many real workers (e.g., gardners) were whacked while useless bureaucrats and compliance Nazis missed the axe.
Bottom line, however, is that most of those who were laid off deserved it, and the Lab is a better place without them.
From the unofficial list of people I saw that were laid off, I don't see how that 94% figure can be claimed, unless a large number of those with under 10 years of service started at the lab in their 30's."
From WSJ, March 11, 2009
"More Workers Cite Age Bias After Layoff"....
...
"The laboratory denies claims of age discrimination. The lab says that of the 440 employees laid off in May, 85% were older than 40. The average age of its 6,800-strong core work force is 49, and 85% of its current employees are older than 40, according to the lab"
Amen
Did you ever go to medical for a heart condition? Challenge a boss over a job assignment? Maybe you just didn't dress well enough. These kinds of things would have put you on the list.
The layoff were not about either age or undesirabilty. Except for the some mistakes, they were about not needing those people.
In general, the Lab got rid of its dead wood.
Your claim that the Lab got rid of its dead wood is all wrong. By making a statement like that you are stating that you know all or the vast majority of the 440 employees that were laid off in May, their work history, what type of performance appraisals they received from their managers, etc.
I happen to know many of the 130people that have joined the lawsuit. In some work groups, older employees that had excellent work records and had 25 to 34 years of dedicated service to LLNL were kicked out the gate while the younger employees with less seniority got to stay. Many have not been able to find decent employment due to their age. Employers like to hire younger workers.
Age discrimination is against the law and it will be proved in court that in fact age discrimination did occur in some work groups in May 2008.
Do you have any actual FACTS to
prove age discrmination ?
I don't have any stats or data ...
But if they have the claim of 94% over 40 being laid off ... it is not necessary discriminatory IF 94% of total employees are over 40 (I'm not saying that's the case, but what are the facts ??? )
There's no attempt to steal any personal information (definition
of phishing). Merely asking for
public facts or information.
"This drama will be tried in court not by public opinion."
In total agreement. Not after opinion ... but only facts.
The burden of proof in future cases has been shifted to the plaintiff (employee), and not the defendant (employer).
Attorney's need to look at employee's yearly evaluations and who made the layoff decisions.