Whistleblower Update: DOE/NNSA Legal Fee Reimbursements to LLNS Continue
Despite a 9-27-17 determination by a DOE OHA Judge that there was a nexus between my "Protected Disclosures" and LLNS retaliation, the NNSA legal fee reimbursement stream to the contractor LLNS kept flowing into November 2017 and beyond.
In 2016, DOE/NNSA reimbursed LLNS a sister LLC to LANS, $57,374 for "Rivera v. LLNS" in Northern District of CA Court for legal fees in a case that was classified as "ongoing".
In May 2018, through a FOIA, the DOE/NNSA released another set of legal fee reimbursements to LLNS. They amount to $170,997. This figure does not include reimbursements to cover this legal firm's production of their 49 page January 2018 LLNS response to my Petition for Secretary Review. Furthermore, this figure does not include LLNS internal labor man-hour charges for such things as coaching for depositions and OHA Hearing, strategy meetings, statement production, OHA Investigator telephonic interviews with LLNS managers and employees, etc.
When all expenses including those redacted, are considered to date, I believe the DOE/NNSA will have reimbursed (bankrolled) LLNS well over a quarter of a million dollars to defend themselves, while leaving me the ex-worker bee whistleblower, to financially fend for himself.
I sent a Tweet to Secretary Perry yesterday asking him when he expects to provide his "final agency decision" on this Whistleblower matter. I don't know how deeply DOE Department Counsel will be involved with Secretary Perry's review.
Anthony Rivera
9 comments:
So you’re suing LLNL and, the big surprise is...they’re defending themselves with lawyers.
And these lawyers charge legal fees which are billed to the federal government, I am shocked, shocked this is going on (Casablanca reference).
Your argument that LLNS should be able to defend themselves with lawyers is a red herring. Please read the July 2016 GAO Report "DOE Whistleblower Protections Need Strengthening". DOE claims to have whistleblower projections for employees, while only bankrolling the contractor's legal fees and not those of the employee. So as the GAO Report states, many contractors win by default. Perhaps you favor Kangaroo Court systems of justice.
Why would you pay the expenses of a whistleblower? That would encourage frivolous lawsuits.
By the way, LLNL is a rough place. I’ve seen people get unfairly treated and targeted for retaliation many times. They usually leave and move on with their lives. I don’t know what these lawsuits can accomplish.
In the early stages of a DOE 708 whistleblower complaint, the contractor in question is granted the opportunity to respond to the employee accusations. If despite the contractors response, the 708 complaint is nevertheless accepted by DOE, exclusively funding the contractor's legal expenses is evidence of a Kangaroo Court system period.
Can you imagine the outcry if a married couple sought a court decision on asset distribution, and it was learned that one party's legal expenses were being bankrolled by the Judge's employer? This is the situation with the DOE OHA.
"Why would you pay the expenses of a whistleblower? That would encourage frivolous lawsuits."
If after LLNS provides an initial response to the employee's allegations, the DOE OHA elects to proceed with an Investigation and or Hearing, the employee accusations were not deemed frivolous by the OHA. Please help us out though, which lawsuits specifically has LLNS or Staff Relations NOT declared frivolous or without merit? FYI: Only reimbursing the legal expenses of the contractor, enables future contractor misconduct.
You write in an overly formal, legalistic way called “stilted speech”.
You write in an overly formal, legalistic way called “stilted speech”.
June 14, 2018 at 4:02 PM
I.e., he actually knows what he's talking about as opposed to the garbage opinions usually expressed here.
Mr. Rivera a 300 series Senior Engineering Associate, reported to a LSEO Group Leader for years, then he was abruptly assigned to the LSEO Superintendent in 2012, at the point he was forced into EIT/EBA status. I wonder if Mr. Rivera ever reached out to the family of Mr. Sailors, who also reported to the LSEO Superintendent as a 500 series Senior Technologist.
What do the LLNS experiences of Mr. Sailors and Mr. Rivera have in common other than they both reported to the LSEO Superintendent in 2012?
Post a Comment