You Had an Affair. What Does That Mean for Your Clearance?
https://news.clearancejobs.com/2022/02/20/you-had-an-affair-what-does-that-mean-for-your-clearance/?utm_medium=email&_hsmi=204847639&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--dxQJ2tQqZAOnkEtmx15wT2FxxMxOJw9O2V6SWAtWzLPpRerHP6bZZXSOiacGd64sX3Wn4eV-RR9sCB_4KfFEWFuuwtFcKobFF3C45h8EX2xqqS-A&utm_content=204847639&utm_source=hs_email
69 comments:
"Adultery can be a real problem for security clearances, because it can be difficult to prove to the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals that an employee who engaged in adultery does not pose a threat to national security given the individual’s susceptibility to coercion related to the affair. The Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information include Guideline D, which lists disqualification for “sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress” and Guideline E, which cites “personal conduct or concealment of information about one’s conduct, that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress.” It also includes Guideline B relating to Foreign Influence if the affair involves a foreign national."
Attempts at "concealment" by the subject or by their political allies (cover ups) can become a BIG security clearance problem.
2/24/2022 1:30 PM
What if the "affair" is many years old and not brought forward to DOE by anyone?
DOE does not care if no one brings it up or complains in court, etc. Uncontested divorces are not considered derogatory, nor are any marital affairs that do not present any possibility of civil or criminal liability or vulnerability to blackmail.
How is that Trump got to see classified information when we had endless affairs. Maybe that is how Russia compromised him.
"...civil or criminal liability or vulnerability to blackmail."
Affairs and the potential for coercion and blackmail do occur. Sometimes there are attempts to keep the affairs concealed, and sometimes they are very obvious. Yes, uncontested divorces shouldn't lead to a security issue unless said divorce leads to undisclosed financial hardships like not paying your taxes etc., on the part of the clearance holder. At LLNL, I am aware of male managers that had undisclosed extramarital affairs with LLNL female subordinates within their respective sphere of influence, and another male manager that was caught with LLNL female employment interviewees at a local Livermore hotel. To your point that "DOE does not care", none of these men were fired, and only one them left LLNL on his own accord, supposedly.
2/25/2022 8:18 AM
Clearance adjudication by DOE/NNSA is entirely separate from employment adjudication by LLNL or LANL.
"Clearance adjudication by DOE/NNSA is entirely separate from employment adjudication by LLNL or LANL."
Only if your high enough in lab management is your statement true, which is where unfortunately, clearance requirement dispariies and national vulnerabilities present themselves.
Being able to acquire and maintain a security clearance is a requirement for continued employment at many labs including LANL and LLNL, and DOE will have the final say as to whether or not an employee's clearance is permanently revoked, with positive or negative input from the employee's contractor considered. It might take ~12 months to be terminated if your clearance is revoked depending on the clearance violation in question and if the contractor can temporarily place the employee in an uncleared area to continue with meaningful work of some kind. Whether your immediately put on ice, suspended, or fired, may depend on the severity of the clearance violation. In other words, did one forget to report a traffic ticket over $300 to the security department (not saying this is trivial), or did one commit national security theft or willfully attempt to conceal some other form of improper conduct. Regarding the topic of extramarital affairs and clearances, the contractor could make the argument to DOE the identified improper conduct and its workplace fallout has been addressed internally.
If your spouse cannot trust you, why should your country?
If your spouse cannot trust you, why should your country?
2/26/2022 11:41 AM
Trust you to do (or not do) what? It matters.
"Trust you to do (or not do) what? It matters."
With respect to the topic question, extramarital affairs put ones trustworthiness into question with respect to DOE security clearance guidelines by which clearance eligibility and or continuation are based upon. Would a neighbor's extramarital affair make him or her less trustworthy to water your lawn or pick up the newspaper on your driveway while your on vacation? Perhaps not. Does this clear things up for you?
2/28/2022 8:14 AM "Does this clear things up for you?"
No. Please explain how someone cheating on his wife puts US national security in danger. It happened all throughout the Manhattan Project.
"No. Please explain how someone cheating on his wife puts US national security in danger. It happened all throughout the Manhattan Project.
2/28/2022 4:22 PM"
It depends on who you are. Suppose you look like Brad Pitt, sure there be plenty of cheating. If on the other hand you look like, say like you and suddenly you had an attractive young lady with a slavic accent on the side, that would be rather "sus" if you know what I am saying.
On a more serious note it is kind obvious why cheating on your spouse could be a threat, in fact anything that can be used for blackmail could compromise you. Also your argument about the Manhattan Project makes no sense. For all you know we now have the rule about cheating because they learned from experenince that it can be used to blackmail people, perhaps they learned this lesson from the Manhattan project itself.
"Please explain how someone cheating on his wife puts US national security in danger. It happened all throughout the Manhattan Project."
You believe "cheating" had no bearing on Manhattan Project espionage? Are you familiar with the DOE/Lab "Lessons Learned" review process and in general, how guidelines are improved and refined over time? If you had or are having a DOE defined extramarital affair ("cheating"), and have your clearance revoked, I would not float such an argument to the DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals. Just saying.
2/28/2022 8:31 PM
A DOE bureaucrat weighs in. "..guidelines are improved and refined over time." Wow, that's profound. Thanks.
2/28/2022 8:14 AM "Does this clear things up for you?"
No. Please explain how someone who killed an intern, has a opioid addition, and 500k in gambling debts put national security in danger? It happened all throughout the history of the United States with lots of people. You guys are not deep thinkers.
Are DOE clearance infidelity guidelines primarily enforced for lab worker bees, while ingrained and politically connected lab manager infidelity indiscretions are sweep under the rug, shrouded in new "more important" assignments elsewhere around the lab away from the trouble zones, or not?
For all you know we now have the rule about cheating because they learned from experenince that it can be used to blackmail people...
2/28/2022 7:46 PM
You ave no idea what I know. 17 years in DOE/NNSA information security. What do you know?
"You ave no idea what I know. 17 years in DOE/NNSA information security. What do you know?"
I know 43,000 pounds of copper was stolen by a LLNS employee at LLNL over MANY years worth over $117,000. Where was security on that one?
You ave no idea what I know. 17 years in DOE/NNSA information security. What do you know?
3/02/2022 5:30 PM
Way more than you. I am so tired of all these "I know so much" I worked at computer help desk for 15 years, I know someone who knows someone. You run into these guys pretty often. For some reason LANL gets more than LLNL. After they retire that often get on social media or the local news to brag how much they know, yet every single time when it is someone I am familiar with they are always totally full of it and ill informed. So just using induction the odds you are just another one these guys.
"cheating because they learned from experience that it can be used to blackmail people" Is true, you do not even need to be on inside to know this all you have to do is look up some of the public spy cases in the last 30 years, heck you can also look at corporate espionage. In short you gave yourself as someone who knows nothing, joining a long list of people like Chris Mechels, Ed Grothus, Leonardo Mascheroni and so on who somehow think they where lab superstars with all this great inside knowledge of how the labs work.
"You ave no idea what I know. 17 years in DOE/NNSA information security. What do you know?"
I know 43,000 pounds of copper was stolen by a LLNS employee at LLNL over MANY years worth over $117,000. Where was security on that one?
The 17 year "information security" dude is ether making it up or redefining his job at the help desk as security. He has made statements that no one at DOR/NNSA who is actually in security would make. I call fake.
Wow, some Lab employees are very insensitive and dismissive of extramarital affair behavior at the Labs. Why is that? They know what the DOE security guidelines are. Hitting a little too close to home maybe? Skeletons in the closet? If so, sooner or later you'll get caught.
So many people like to think they know more than the people who actually know things. It's kind of funny.
To be fair, 9:37, the late Ed Grothus never claimed to be a superstar with insider information.
"So many people like to think they know more than the people who actually know things. It's kind of funny."
Really? It appears the lessons learned from Sister Megan Rice, who years ago, broke into the Y-12 nuclear facility to this day, has the so called "security experts" remaining tone deaf. Get over yourself.
To be fair, 9:37, the late Ed Grothus never claimed to be a superstar with insider information.
3/03/2022 7:00 PM
Sorta disagree on this. I actually knew the guy. Fun store to be sure and was pretty cool in his own way. He had a rather high opinion of himself but you have a point he did not claim to have any kind insider information.
"So many people like to think they know more than the people who actually know things. It's kind of funny.
3/03/2022 6:13 PM"
Wow this is epistemological question. Suppose 3/02/2022 5:30 PM thinks he actually knows things but how does he distinguish between actually thinking he knows things, from actually knowing things? We as observers cannot be certain he does not know things even if thinks he knows things, but that is where Hume teaches observations matter in practical way. We can observe that 5:30 PM made statements which do not really seem to make sense on the face of it, however he may still know things that we do don't so it could just seem to us it it does makes make sense but if we knew the things he knows it would make sense. We can also test if is statements stands to real life cases of national security which they do not. Now this does not rule out that he could still know something. But in the larger scheme of things we can never really know if 5:30 PM actually knows something but we can take a guess that he does not. As Hume says about the sun rising each day, is that we cannot be certain of what will happen tomorrow. Things may continue in the same way. The sun will probably rise tomorrow (or perhaps a giant bunny will come bounding over the horizon). In other words from the information we have 5:30PM is probably does not know things, but perhaps he is a giant bunny that does know something. Ask yourself which is more likely. Most people will go with sun rising.
"from Sister Megan Rice, who years ago, broke into the Y-12 nuclear facility to this day, has the so called "security experts"
Was Sister Megan Rice having an affair with Y-12 worker? I think not which proves having a affair is no threat to national security....mic drop.
“Was Sister Megan Rice having an affair with Y-12 worker? I think not which proves having a affair is no threat to national security....mic drop.”
The Sister Megan Rice and copper thief events were simply examples of where security “experts” dropped the ball and how blog anonymous security “experts” don’t necessarily have extramarital affairs dialed in correctly in terms of the potential for blackmail or coercion it presents. But I think you know this.
Of course, one can’t know if these are actual Lab security employees at all. Perhaps they are just Lab employees that wish to have extramarital affairs discredited in terms of its threat to national security and clearance requirements.
There are at least 2 ways to keep a lab extramarital affair from being exposed. Either the members of your lab clique are helping you conceal your behavior, or you and or your lab clique have squelched your coworker witnesses by fear and intimidation to keep quiet. But, don’t the DOE guidelines require that you turn this person into security or to the DOE IG for questioning? If not, where do the clearance guidelines state extramarital affairs need not be reported when identified compared to the other clearance guidelines?
“Adultery and Security Clearances”
“...An adulterous worker may lose their security clearance when it comes up for review, particularly if they’ve gone to any effort to conceal their actions... When a cleared worker does commit adultery, the punishment is not to penalize their moral behavior, but to nullify the threat posed by that individual’s susceptibility to coercion.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.clearancejobs.com/2013/01/15/adultery-and-security-clearances/amp/
In my experience adultery is not a threat to national security. All you keyboard warriors have no real understating of security or threats should leave that to the experts and people who understand these things. You guys come across as the typical know it all cowboys that have no experience with the real world. It is funny and sad at the same time.
"In my experience adultery is not a threat to national security. All you keyboard warriors have no real understating of security or threats should leave that to the experts and people who understand these things."
With respect to your self proclaimed security expertise, the DOE security clearance guidelines are in black and white print. I'm sorry if this fact doesn't meet your expectations. I suppose you could petition the DOE to revise their Q Clearance criteria, but until then as the saying goes, your "working harder than a cat trying to bury a turd (extramarital affair) on a marble floor". If you are indeed in security and have rubber stamped extramarital affairs as acceptable conduct for Q-Cleared employees, that's on you and nobody else to defend.
You guys come across as the typical know it all cowboys that have no experience with the real world. It is funny and sad at the same time.
3/05/2022 12:13 PM
Wait, you want the entire blog shut down?? Who would come here if they couldn't bloviate or rant about things they actually know nothing about?
If a lab employees extramarital affair comes under question and that employees management forwards the concern to the Local Field Office (LSO), or the LSO learns of the extramarital affair from an anonymous source, what happens next assuming the subject elected not to self-report the extramarital affair to Security in a timely manner?
The Lab's LSO reviews the potential violations identified within the Adjudicative Guidelines, namely Guideline D “sexual behavior that causes an individual to be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or duress” and or Guideline E, “personal conduct or concealment of information about one’s conduct, that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress.”.
What are a few factors that may lead to a revoked Q-Clearance and what factors may preserve the Q-Clearance? This is where it can get very political. Is the subject a valuable worker, but with no particular programmatic assets compelling enough, to attempt to preserve the subjects clearance that couldn't otherwise be easily replaced by another Lab employee? Or, is the subject well protected politically because the subject has a "key" or "unique" role at the lab to such a degree, that revoking the subjects clearance would have major political fallout within or outside the Lab? I seriously doubt the LSO would make any unilateral moves regarding the disposition of the subjects clearance without significant input from the subjects managers and their managers up the chain. Being guilty of an extramarital affair is just a starting point of a Q-Clearance review with many ingredients baked in the cake.
There must be some truth offered by 3/06/2022 8:42 AM, since no "security experts" have challenged those opinions. Maybe the Local Security Offices have their backs against the wall on some of these extramarital affair security violations that become overruled by local political consideriations. This would not be surprising or rare in my view.
I can assure you that considerations such as "programmatic assets" and "well protected politically" and "input from the subjects managers and their managers up the chain" have absolutely no impact on a decision based on confirmed derogatory information to revoke a clearance. That is just paranoid nonsense. Managers are almost always surprised to find that their employee has had his/her clearance revoked. And the reason is never revealed to anyone outside the employee and his/her legal council.
"I can assure you that considerations such as "programmatic assets" and "well protected politically" and "input from the subjects managers and their managers up the chain" have absolutely no impact on a decision based on confirmed derogatory information to revoke a clearance. That is just paranoid nonsense. Managers are almost always surprised to find that their employee has had his/her clearance revoked. And the reason is never revealed to anyone outside the employee and his/her legal council."
Sorry, but either you are misinformed or are being dishonest. Lab Managers can and have petitioned the LSO and DOE/NNSA HQ in the attempt to preserve an employee's clearance that is in peril when onsite remedies fail or are perceived to likely to fail.
"Managers are almost always surprised to find that their employee has had his/her clearance revoked."
I call BS. For the "unprotected", Managers themselves can execute disciplinary actions that can set in motion, review of the employees clearance by security staff. Only a newbie would believe management and Staff Relations for that matter, are totally unaware that disciplinary actions in response to an employees sexual misconduct can lead to the employees security clearance being revoked.
I call BS.
3/09/2022 9:26 PM
First, no one made you the umpire. Second you are assuming that the derogatory information that caused a clearance revocation arose due to known workplace or public behavior. In many cases, it arises from investigation of information derived from responses on the SF86. Or sometimes, from the responses to personal inquiries of neighbors and references as listed. People's lives are much less private than they assume.
"...you are assuming that the derogatory information that caused a clearance revocation arose due to known workplace or public behavior. In many cases, it arises from investigation of information derived from responses on the SF86. Or sometimes, from the responses to personal inquiries of neighbors and references as listed..."
In reference to the topic question, "Affairs and clearance", yes derogatory information can come from one or multiple sources inside and outside the Laboratory. Of course per clearance guidelines, the conduct should be self-reported correct?
Section 17.1 of the Standard Form 86 (SF86) for "National Security Positions" asks if you are "currently in a civil marriage , "legally recognized civil union" or legally recognized domestic partnership..."
Section 17.3 of the SF86 for "National Security Positions" asks, "do you presently reside with a person, other than a spouse or legally recognized civil union/ domestic partner, with whom you share bonds of affection, obligation, or other commitment,..."
If the applicant for a National Security Position answers "YES" to 17.1 and "YES" to 17.3, this will likely be a big red flag. If the applicant for a National Security Position answers "YES" to 17.1 and "NO" to 17.3, when in fact the applicant DID or DOES have a relationship as defined in 17.3, witnessed by neighbors, references, coworkers/subordinates (if not scared sh_tless for their own jobs) this will likely be a flashing neon red flag. Nothing new here, except that if clearance applicant is politically connected, a narrative can be created (spin) to minimize the extramarital affairs clearance and career damage.
3/11/2022 7:02 AM
Your argument about "politically connected" clearance applicants is just absolute garbage without any evidence. If you have some, show it.
"Your argument about "politically connected" clearance applicants is just absolute garbage without any evidence. If you have some, show it."
Clearance applicants, re-clearance, and derogatory events in between, if your politically too important and in the club at the Lab, there are no guarantees, but the skids will be greased for you until and unless external forces prevail. Perhaps the idea of 2 sets of rules is a new concept for you.
You might want to read up on the "politically connected" former LANL Deputy Director Beth Sellers who was not fired by LANS management, and did not have her clearance revoked, she instead "resigned". Prior to Beth Sellers resignation, LANS Director Charlie McMillan, and the LANS "Audit and Ethics" Team did nothing except express sadness at her decision to resign. Sorry, 2 sets of rules for conduct exist and are in play at the Labs. Extramarital affairs and clearance rules for the politically connected are no different. The Lab wagons will circle.
"LANL Deputy Director Beth Sellers "
Beth went on to work for Bechtel after that. Also everyone had to take a new ethics training because of Beth. Also under Charlie we had
the whole Rich Marquez "ethics" laps that got hime fired. LANS had some real great "business" practices if you know what I mean.
True 3/12/2022 2:02 PM, but the anonymous 3/11/2022 5:22 PM blogger, refuses to acknowledge these double standards. Is it because this blogger actually believes there are no double standards, or is it because this person has enabled double standards. An itch one can’t scratch after the fact? Hmm.
3/11/2022 11:54 PM
So two arguable anecdotes and no other evidence for your rather sweeping claims. Just another disgruntled ex-employee.
"So two arguable anecdote"
Beth Sellers is not really arguable, she just happens to be the highest level one. In case you have not been following the blog the last 12 years there are case, after case, after case, after case, after case, after case,...ok you get the point. In fact there is another deputy director who "found a family" rather abruptly. Do we have to dredge up all these cases yet again? It gets kinda of old, we name the names, link the news stories, and so on. You do not reply and our months latter you say they same thing, we bring up all the names again and so on. At some point you either need to come clean that you just playing us, or you need to do the work yourself. You can find all the old posts on LLNL and the retried LANL blog. I am sure you will see you very own posts saying the same thing as well.
Look if you willing to put in a bit of work yourself then we can do something. How about this:
As your first exercise, find out who the first deputy under LANS was, how long we was around and so on. Also look for someone with the initials JQ associated LANL if you have any doubts about security clearances. If that works we can go on from there to next batch and so on. Let us meet in middle as for as the effort in this goes. We good now.
"So two arguable anecdotes and no other evidence for your rather sweeping claims. Just another disgruntled ex-employee."
How comical. This anonymous blog commenter wants others to provide full disclosure of an employee's extramarital affair at the Lab, such as:
1. Name of the Lab employee having the extramarital affair
2. Name of individual having the extramarital affair with the Lab employee
3. Was the individual having the extramarital affair with the Lab employee affiliated with the Lab or a Lab employee themself?
4. Did the Lab employee having the extramarital affair use his or her position at the Lab to facilitate and or conceal the extramarital affair?
5. Did the Lab employee having the extramarital affair have any special function or status at the Lab?
6. Were there uninvolved Lab employees impacted by the extramarital affair?
7. Which Lab managers were aware of the extramarital affair?
8. Did the Lab managers discipline the Lab employee for having the extramarital affair or for workplace attempts to conceal it?
9. Did the Lab managers of Lab employee having the extramarital affair, throw the Lab employee a "lifeline" to save the employee's career while concealing the extramarital affair at the same time? If yes, what did these Lab managers do?
Frankly, I don't think the blog moderator would want this kind of detail because it could harm uninvolved employees. Secondly, it would do nothing to stop the naysayers on this blog.
5:00 the “anecdotes”, as you call them, are facts. There are dozens of similar examples. People are, “disgruntled” because not only is there a double standard, people like you defend those who created it thereby enabling further abuse.
"Frankly, I don't think the blog moderator would want this kind of detail because it could harm uninvolved employees. Secondly, it would do nothing to stop the naysayers on this blog.
3/13/2022 6:32 AM"
Suppose you actually did all that work. The poster will never reply or say "these are isolated cases and you do not know the facts". 6 months down the road the poster repeats the claim. In other words no amount of evidence will convince them or they simply have some kind of agenda. The blog is oddly enough kind of how society actually thinks and functions.
Blog "examples" are not facts. They are at best allegations, since they include no supporting evidence. Allegations without supporting evidence get thrown out of courts every day. But have fun with it, if that's what gets you off.
“Not facts”, “at best allegations”, “without supporting evidence”? In closed meetings, isn’t this precisely how lab employee ranking is done? Another lab culture “rules for thee but not for me” double standard.
If some of these bloggers were put in charge of automobile recalls, to shield the manufacturer, instead of addressing the problems, they would refer to car complaints from car owners as disgruntled customers. But that attitude and business practice would come at a high cost in a competitive and fluid market. Not so much for LLCs like LLNS, that is essentially uncoupled to the real market place. So addressable issues go unaddressed.
7:03 precisely.
3/14/2022 7:03 AM
So to beat them, you have to become like them, which you claim to hate. Got it.
“So to beat them, you have to become like them, which you claim to hate. Got it.”
I don’t think you do. Who used the word hate here? It’s more like you don’t like the taste of your own medicine. But that was no surprise.
Dee Kotla won her case when she was fired from UC/LLNL for reporting sexual harassment of a female LLNL employee. It is in the public domain. For blog naysayers to argue for extramarital affair specifics is ridiculous, as if there isn't an existing pattern of protect lab management at all costs in play, including employee retaliation for reporting. 2022 Lab employee extramarital affair reporting would be treated no differently. Sad.
https://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/legal-swindle
Who used the word hate here?
3/14/2022 8:39 PM
Doesn't matter what you call it. How about "So to beat them, you have to become like them, which you claim to dislike. Got it.” Better?
"Doesn't matter what you call it. How about "So to beat them, you have to become like them, which you claim to dislike. Got it.” Better?"
Not so much. Again, nobody said "hate" or "beat them", these are your harsh assessments of blog comments, probably because you have directly benefited from the post UC/LLNL status quo.
This blog with its a anonymous comment option, was created "for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL, and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab...". Privatization under the for-profit management of Lawrence Livermore National Security (LLNS) LLC to be clear. There is no moral equivalence between being nontransparent on a blog primarily due to fear of workplace reprisals, and being nontransparent in the workplace where non-transparency is a tool of reprisals and known to occur.
If you believe extramarital affairs aren't happening at LLNL, or believe extramarital affairs at LLNL don't have any impact on national security or Q-Clearance eligibility, those are your opinions to embrace. Can we get back to this extramarital affair topic question now?
3/16/2022 8:29 AM
You can "get back" to anything you want. Your gaslighting is world-class, though.
If the dust can settle some, has there been occurrences of extramarital affairs at LLNL that were addressed or basically given a pass?
"Hate", "beat them", and now "gaslighting". Wow, like the bird going into his broken wing routine to divert attention of predators away from their nest, some of these commenters are pulling out all the stops to discredit and silence this Lab extramarital affair topic.
3/17/2022 7:50 AM
It is wise and entirely acceptable to discredit nonsense and axe-grinding.
"It is wise and entirely acceptable to discredit nonsense and axe-grinding."
An earlier post mentioned the Beth Sellers member of "the club" and her red carpet treatment, which is available in the public domain. But, you would likely say this is "nonsense" too. Is it wise and entirely acceptable to protect Lab employees in "the club"? I suppose it would be if your a member of "the club", or an arm of "the club" like say in Staff Relations. If you are in one of these two categories then I understand your anonymous criticisms. If one has been a LLNS employee for even a few years, they know by now LLNS managerial decisions on all Lab matters are never wrong, and should not be questioned, so blogs like this one are a constant burr under your saddle. Try compartmentalization. Blend in your dissatisfaction with Lab criticisms on this blog with things going well in your life and things you truly apprecIate.
This thread has gotten the most comments of any in a long, long time. proof once again the sex sells.
Ask previous LLNL EE Superintendent “Bill” what he thinks about Q-Clearances and extramarital affairs with subordinate Lab employees, or ask his former wife’s friends who worked with her in HR. And the cover ups for EE manager extramarital affairs at LLNL don’t end there do they? There are fresher LLNL extramarital affairs too that are even worse.
I remember that. The jig was up when his wife, an HR employee, called the hotel her EE manager husband was staying at on Lab travel to add herself as wife to the hotel reservation, to which the reservationist replied the "wife" was already listed on the hotel reservation. A horrible and pathetic way to treat your spouse with a Lab pass of approval.
When reprehensible behavior like this is smoothed over, it sets a bad precedent and a "get out of jail free" gift card to the next swinging
D _ _ k Lab manager involved in an extramarital affair because that person now has a card to play in their pocket if disciplinary action is forthcoming. A bad Lab extramarital affair pattern of approval no doubt
You don't need a "get out of jail free gift card" if you already have as far as LLNS is concerned, an "I was hired on 3rd base, and don't you dare forget it" card. These are the real LLNL workplace politically "untouchables".
"This thread has gotten the most comments of any in a long, long time. proof once again the sex sells."
And when an example of a Lab extramarital affair is mentioned, the "discredit nonsense" commenter is silent.... Well, that commenter can always retreat behind the "axe-grinding" comment, a tried and true means of victim or witness blaming.
Just ask Dee Kotla, who won her case against LLNL for being a victim of retaliation because she bravely chose to be a witness in a LLNL sexual harassment case. If your interested in that case, its on YouTube FULL MEASURE "Legal Swindle" from January 29, 2017. What a flagrant waste of $10M tax payer dollars by LLNL to pay for their legal expenses to fight Dee Kotla in court.
Yes Lab management has non-retaliation and sexual harassment polices on paper, but try to test those polices, and millions of risk free dollars from DOE/NNSA will be at the Labs disposal to discredit you, fire you, and fight you in court. I don't know about your "sex sells" comment, but the consequences and arguably cover ups of sexual misconduct at the Lab are certainly funded in court by US taxpayers.
Post a Comment