Senators say DOE may have reimbursed contractor for fighting whistleblower claims
"DOE and the Lawrence Livermore partnership did not return requests for comment on the senators’ letter."
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/375886-senators-say-doe-may-have-reimbursed-contractor-for-fighting
7 comments:
Ten million in legal costs to fight a single whistleblower in a sexual harassment case at LLNL.
"January 29, 2017 — You’ve probably heard of the government’s, “War on Whistleblowers.” It refers to heavy-handed efforts to discourage insiders from exposing waste, fraud, discrimination and other bad practices. But what you probably didn’t know is that these vendettas against truth-tellers are routinely funded with your tax dollars...As it happened, she was fired over the phone calls, right after she blew the whistle against her employer in a sexual harassment case on behalf of a colleague named Kim... Kotla won two separate trials: the first for a million and a second for two million. By the time it was all over in 2005, the case that started over four dollars in phone calls had racked up ten million dollars in legal costs. All paid for, believe it or not, by your tax dollars."
http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/legal-swindle
The Kotla case predates LLNS and would be UC's problem as the M&O. The LLNS component is the massive age-discrimination lawsuit resulting from the contract transition and subsequent reduction in force.
"The LLNS component is the massive age-discrimination lawsuit resulting from the contract transition and subsequent reduction in force."
Yes, after our friends and coworkers were processed and directed out of the LLNL gate like cattle, LLNS ended up collecting $23 million plus from DOE/NNSA to finance the legal battle against them in Court for years. For-profit contractors like LLNS greatly appreciate a reliable CYA financial resource to litigate and protect their own internal mismanagement. The root of the Senators concern it seems is the financial enabling of contractor mismanagement.
March 1, 2018 at 1:29 PM
You are not getting this are you? Money can made off the government if you play you cards right, it does not matter which side you are on. If you don't gets this than thats on you, you cannot blame those who figured out the game, and make no mistake this whole this is a game now since it become for profit. F the American people !!! Ca-Ching
March 1, 2018 at 8:45 PM
So how rich and famous are you, with all your genius knowledge? Not so much I'm betting, if you have time for and interest in this trivial blog. Don't you have, like really really important things to do??
I'm waiting for the "so what" moment in this discussion and article. Unless it is specifically excluded in the contract, they get reimbursed. If it is from a past contractor, they get reimbursed.
"I'm waiting for the "so what" moment in this discussion and article. Unless it is specifically excluded in the contract, they get reimbursed. If it is from a past contractor, they get reimbursed."
It is not that simple. Yes, the contract permits reimbursements if such requests meet DOE criteria. The April 2016 letter in the link below to Secretary Moniz might explain the Senators ongoing contractor reimbursement concerns.
"Dear Secretary Moniz:
I am writing to request information about the Department of Energy's (DOE's) efforts to ensure that public funds are not being used to reimburse contractors for legal fees and settlement costs that are not permissible due to illegal conduct on the part of the contractor or its employees...If contractors do not expect to suffer a financial penalty for misconduct, they have little incentive to strictly police such misconduct, or to implement policies for avoiding it in the first place. And by indiscriminately reimbursing their legal fees, DOE encourages contractors to engage in endless appeals, exhausting the resources of whistleblowers and potentially enabling contractors to win by default despite engaging in illegal conduct."
https://www.markey.senate.gov//imo/media/doc/DOE%20legal%20fees%2004.07.16.pdf
Post a Comment