Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli, & Brewer will hold a rally of former employees of Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS), who were unjustly fired in the wake of the laboratory’s transition from public to private control. The rally will be held Tuesday May 22, 2012 at 4:00pm at Lawrence Livermore Lab. Plaintiffs, their supporters and the media will gather at the West Gate entrance of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (located off S. Vasco Rd.) 7000 East Avenue, Livermore, California.

Privatization of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Discriminatory and Unlawful Layoffs

• Sudden unemployment of hundreds of employees: during one of the country’s most severe economic slumps.  The vast majority were in their 40s, 50s and 60s, leading to age discrimination claims against LLNS.
• The “brain drain”: of experienced, loyal employees, from scientists to support staff, in a field closely tied to national security and highly sensitive weapons development.
• Private partnership’s disingenuous claim: that a budget shortfall justified the layoffs, when a scientist and former government analyst said no such shortfall existed

In addition to former employees, Lead Counsel Gary Gwilliam will be available to media to explain how privatization of the lab led to the discriminatory and unlawful layoffs, the endangerment of national security, and the waste of taxpayer dollars. For more information contact Gary Gwilliam, ggwilliam@giccb.com or (510) 832-5411 and Deborah Colaianni, dcolaianni@justiceinmedia.com or (202) 679-2652.

Unjust and Unjustified Layoffs: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Privatized

Founded in Livermore, Calif., in the early 1950s, under the auspices of the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory was one of the United States’ flagship nuclear weapons labs. Even after the Cold War ended, the federal government remained interested in the lab’s science and paid to keep it running.

In 2006, the Bush administration’s Department of Energy solicited bids from private contractors to assume control of Livermore Lab. The purpose, the government said, was to transition the lab “to industrial standards and capitalize on private sector expertise.”

Two years later, the DOE awarded the contract to Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS), a private partnership led by Bechtel Corp., the multinational engineering company based in San Francisco.  In exchange for millions in management fees, Bechtel promised to improve efficiency at Livermore Lab.

The lab also continued to receive taxpayer dollars—upwards of $1 billion annually.

Promises Aside, After Privatization, 440 Employees Laid Off

When LLNS took over, the lab employed around 7,000 people. Nearly all were longtime University of California employees. In 30 years, there hadn’t been a single layoff at Livermore Lab.

As part of the takeover, LLNS agreed to hire all existing workers, most of whom were assured they would not be terminated without reasonable cause.

But within months of LLNS taking control, 440 permanent employees were let go. The vast majority had been with Livermore Lab for many years and were over the age of 40.

For example, Marian Barraza – one of the first five plaintiffs to go to trial on October 1, 2012 – had worked at Livermore Lab for more than 38 years. A purchasing specialist, Ms. Barraza worked in a group of five employees.  The two oldest and most senior employees were laid off, and their duties were redistributed to the other significantly younger employees.

Despite their long tenure and proven loyalty, the 440 employees – from administrative assistants to nuclear scientists – were escorted off the LLNS grounds by security personnel.

More than 130 Employment Discrimination Suits Filed

Following the layoffs, many of the ex-employees began considering litigation. Ultimately, 130 former employees of Livermore Lab filed individual complaints with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the agency charged with enforcing the state’s anti-discrimination laws.

In May 2009, Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer, an Oakland-based law firm, filed suit against LLNS in Alameda County Superior Court, representing 130 of the wrongfully terminated employees.

Many of the 130 are still searching for jobs in a strained economy. Some have lost their homes and health; others have filed for bankruptcy. All 130 cases have been consolidated for trial. (This is NOT a class action.)

Industry Expert  Dr.Robert Civiak Questions Motivation for Layoffs

LLNS argued that a $280 million budget shortfall necessitated the layoffs, but based on the review of Dr. Robert Civiak, an independent consultant who specializes in budget and policy issues related to nuclear weapons, LLNS had sufficient funds to avoid any layoffs.  Dr. Civiak says LLNS’s claim of a $280 million shortfall was fabricated to get increased funding from the Bush administration.

He is expected to testify on behalf of the plaintiffs at trial.

In what is an alarming development in the ongoing saga of the privatization of our nations’ nuclear laboratories, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) approved a plan to cut up to 11% of Los Alamos National Laboratory permanent staff. Somewhere between 400 and 800, out of a workforce of 7,585, permanent staff members will lose their jobs. This action is being taken, according to the NNSA, as a result of a 12% cut in LANL’s budget for 2012. In a game of high stakes semantics, permanent staff willing to take early retirement, could apply for “voluntary redundancy” severance packages. Many of these volunteers are waiting to find out if their applications have been accepted.

Los Alamos Budget: Real Problems or Fabricated?

In what must sound familiar to former Lawrence Livermore National Lab employees who lost their jobs, Los Alamos director Charles McMillan gave these reasons for job cuts:

• The lab’s budget problems will not improve in the short term
• The budget is down roughly $300 million in fiscal year 2012 from 2011′s total budget of $2.5 billion
• President Obama’s budget request for 2013 “doesn’t look good”
• 60%+ of the shortfall is “directly connected to costs of the workforce”

According to McMillan, LANL has been cutting back on procurements and other spending since November 2011. He maintains that a hiring freeze would not work leaving “voluntary redundancy” as the only option.

Condition of Los Alamos National Laboratory: Better or Worse After the Cuts?

Are these job cuts, robbing LANL of some of their best, most experienced minds leading to a “brain drain” and handicapping the lab’s abilities to produce scientific breakthroughs and important ongoing development? According to director McMillan, despite the job cuts, LANL will still be able to produce to its full capabilities and execute future plans.

National Academy of Sciences: NNSA Study

Conversely, a National Academies of Sciences panel disputes director McMillan’s claims. The committee tasked with studying the National Nuclear Security Administration’s management of its weapons labs, and the effects that management has on scientific work, describes the relationship as “dysfunctional.” In addition the report includes the following tough assessment:

“In the view of this committee, the relationship between NNSA and its National Security Laboratories is broken to an extent that very seriously affects the Labs’ capability to manage for quality S&E. There has been a breakdown of trust and an erosion of the partnering between the Laboratories and NNSA to solve complex S&E problems; there is conflict and confusion over management roles and responsibilities of organizations and individuals.”

Although the committee concluded that “privatized management did not hurt science, “voluntary redundancy” is stripping LANL of important permanent employees who may have been integral in past accomplishments and scientific developments. To that end everybody loses in this scenario.

As a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Nuclear Watch New Mexico, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has released the Performance Evaluation Reports for its eight nuclear weapons sites: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory, Nevada National Security Site, Kansas City Plant, Savannah River Site, Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, and the Pantex Plant. These evaluation reports, “the government’s scorecard for awarding tens of millions of dollars to nuclear weapons contractors”, have been withheld since 2009 in a possible attempt to avert contractor accountability in the management of these facilities.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

With 130 plaintiffs slated to go to trial in October against Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC, the firm managing LLNL, for age discrimination and other corrupt employment practices, the NNSA still praised LLNS LLC for their hiring practices:

“To maintain the workforce, the contractor (LLNS) actively recruited and hired researchers in an effort to boost the post-doctoral program. The contractor hired 250 students and 199 post-doctoral researchers during fiscal year 2011. This reflects a record high of post-doctoral recruitments at the contractor since fiscal year 2007.”

Under the heading, “Performance Objective 10: Manage Business Operations in an Effective and Efficient Manner while Safeguarding Public Assets and Supporting Mission Objectives” Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC was praised for their employment practices despite facing the current employment lawsuit on a number of discriminatory, corrupt employment practices:

“The Contractor (LLNS) has maintained a consistent outstanding level of performance in.  .  .  strategic human resources management (SHRM).  .  .  Under strong leadership in those areas, Contrator (LLNS) has successfully enabled its strategic human resources management team to produce outstanding results in several areas that have resulted in improved employee performance, enabled timely decision making by management, and supports accountability. . . “

The NNSA further lists notable accomplishments that include:

• L-Hire system, Learning Management System, and Business Intelligence Reporting Project were enhanced or upgraded to improve the contractor’s (LLNS) overall (employment) recruitment cycle time and allow management and employee access to centralized personnel training information
• Developed and launched Strategic Human Capital performance dashboard

Much of this praise flies in the face of the reality of the unacceptable layoffs and corrupt employment practices Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC is faced with in the coming months.

Performance Evaluation Reports (PDFs):

• Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
• Babcock & Wilcox Y-12 Technical Services
• Los Alamos National Security
• Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies (Kansas City plant)
• Savannah River Nuclear Solutions: 2 docs: (signed E.S.) / (PER)
• National Security Technologies (Nevada Site)

Elaine Andrews, a former employee of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who was laid off in the wake of LLNL’s transition from public to private control, shares her personal story of suffering and loss. She is one of 130 former workers of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who claim that illegal widespread layoffs specifically targeted the highest salaried senior staff members who were closest to retirement. Their claims against Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory vary from wrongful termination to age, race and disability discrimination. The discrimination lawsuit against Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which was filed May 2009, is set for trial October 2012 in the Alameda County Superior Court.

For more information on this case, please refer to our library of blog articles and references:

• Monumental Wrongful Termination Suit Looms Over Lawrence Livermore Lab
• Employee Lawsuit Exacerbates Issues at Livermore Lab
• Federal Judge Grants Order for Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand in Lawrence Livermore Lab Case
• The Marian Barraza Story: Plaintiff to Challenge Lawrence Livermore Lab in Courtroom Showdown
• Rally and News Conference to be Held for 130 Former Lawrence Livermore Lab Workers on Eve of Trial
• Plaintiffs Speak Out Against Lawrence Livermore Lab Layoffs: Exclusive Video 
• Judge Preserves Vital Age Discrimination Claims of 130 Laid Off Lawrence Livermore Lab Employees
• Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC Fabricated Budgetary Problems

Michael Gressett, former Contra Costa County Deputy District Attorney maliciously accused of rape charges that were recently dismissed, announced in a press conference Wednesday March 21, held at the Gwilliam, Ivary, Chisso, Cavalli & Brewer offices,  that he filed a lawsuit against the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office, the City of Martinez, and the Martinez police department. Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli, & Brewer filed Government claim forms for Contra Costa County and the City of Martinez on March 21, 2012; the documents were made available at the press conference. The lawsuit alleges malicious prosecution.

Michael Gressett: Malicious Prosecution

In what has been a highly publicized case, former Deputy District Attorney Michael Gressett was maliciously investigated and prosecuted after being accused of raping a fellow assistant district attorney.  All criminal charges in the case were dismissed in October 2011 by a judge, who agreed with defense attorneys that the prosecution had failed to turn over to the grand jury evidence that could have cleared him. In addition, Mr. Gressett was ordered reinstated to his position after an arbitrator found the allegations against Mr. him had no factual basis.  He is filing a civil suit alleging the entire prosecution was politically motivated.

Michael Gressett: “Destroyed Life”

During the press conference, Michael Gressett articulated the incredible stress and pain he has been under. He characterized the case as a “death sentence” and his life as being “destroyed in every possible way.”

Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli, & Brewer

For more information regarding this case please contact Shareholder Gary Gwilliam  at 510-832-5411 or ggwilliam@giccb.com. If Mr. Gwilliam is not available please contact Jayme L. Burns at 510-832-5411 or jburns@giccb.com or Jane Gorelick at 510-832-5411.

“There never was a $280 M shortfall at all. That figure gives a distorted picture of the budget”
– Dr. Robert Civiak

In an important development in Andrews et al., Plaintiff v. Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC et al., Defendants, Dr. Robert L. Civiak, a Ph.D physicist with 30 years consulting experience specializing in budget and policy issues relating to nuclear weapons, including the management and operation of the United States nuclear weapons complex, wrote a scathing declaration that sheds light on LLNS management practices.

The case concerns a layoff at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory that closely followed the lab’s transition from management by the University of California to management by LLNS, which is led by Bechtel National. In exchange for millions in management fees, Bechtel promised to improve efficiency at the lab. Instead, LLNS claimed a budget short-fall of $280 million forced them to layoff 440 career employees.

In what is surely an indictment of LLNS’s story of why they took action to layoff career employees, Dr. Robert L. Civiak stated:

“LLNS maintains that the layoff of career employees in April 2008 was necessitated by a lack of funds. However, based on my review, I have determined LLNS had sufficient funds to avoid any involuntary layoffs. I believe that LLNS intentionally overstated it’s budget problems in 2008 and arbitrarily chose to address an invented $280 million shortfall, eventually with involuntary layoffs of career employees.”

Decreased Funding: What Surprise Budgetary Shortfall?

According to Dr. Civiak, the 2008 budgetary parameters were known well before LLNS took over managing the Lab in October 2007 and “any suggestion that a surprise budget shortfall led LLNS to invoke involuntary layoffs of career employees is false.” The following are the eye-opening facts as they were known before LLNS was hired to manage the Lab:

• Possibility of a decrease in funding from 2007 to 2008 of $100 million or more was known to LLNL when President’s Fiscal Year 2008 budget was sent to Congress in February 2007
• Final LLNL funding levels in 2008 ($1.565 M) was actually $82 M more than the Lab’s initial estimates and only $34 M less than the Lab received in Fiscal Year 2007
• Increased costs of the LLNS contract were known before LLNS assumed management of the Lab. September of 2007 LLNL estimated the extra expense of the new contract would be $138 M in Fiscal Year 2008
• Final accounting for 2008 showed that the actual extra expense was $114 M or $24 M less than LLNL’s original estimate

Increased Costs: What Surprise Budgetary Shortfall?

The increased costs of the new LLNS contract were more than offset by cost reductions elsewhere including:

• Total costs of operating the Lab decreased from $1.624 M in Fiscal Year 2007 to $1.587 M in Fiscal Year 2008
•  None of the $600 K+ savings came from workforce restructuring- which actually cost money in 2008 due to severance costs exceeding reductions in salary
•  Above reductions in cost directly contradict the Defendant’s claim in “Statement of Undisputed Facts” that “In Fiscal Year 2008, the costs of operating the Lab increased from what they had been in Fiscal Year 2007.

Consistent Claims of $280 Million Shortfall

Throughout early 2008, LLNS consistently claimed they faced a budgetary shortfall consisting of a decrease in funding of $100 M in Fiscal Year 2008 compared to Fiscal Year 2007, increased costs of $130 M from the new contract, and $50 M for inflation.

Significant Cost Reductions in 2008

LLNS purportedly derived the $280 M shortfall by comparing it’s costs and available funds for Fiscal Year 2008 with those of Fiscal Year 2007. However they overstated the problem by failing to reflect significant cost reductions in 2008 that were already in place when LLNS took over. Examples include:

• Beginning of Fiscal Year 2008 Lab employment had already fallen by 350 full-time equivalent employees  (FTE) from the average level of Fiscal Year 2007
• At average salary of $140 K + benefits per employee, that provided a savings of $50 M compared to 2007, without any further reduction in employment
• November of 2007, LLNS’ own financial analysis projected that it’s costs would exceed funding in Fiscal Year 2008 by only $188 M. Nonetheless, management chose to invent a $280 M shortfall
• March 2008 LLNS’s CFO was projecting that costs would exceed new funding in Fiscal Year 2008 by only $116 M- management continued to insist on claiming a $280 M shortfall despite the fact that historically the Lab usually received additional unanticipated funds over the course of the year

Balanced Budget: GSO Funding

According to LLNS’ own documents, no further savings would have been needed to balance the budget because at least $160 M of the $477 M in GSO funding, at the end of Fiscal Year 2007, was available to mitigate the Fiscal Year 2008 shortfall.

Conclusion: No Layoffs Needed

The shortfall grew smaller throughout Fiscal Year 2008 as funding trended upward and costs trended downward. By April 2008, the time the layoffs took place, LLNS had made sufficient progress in meetingtheir budget needs to eliminate any conceivable need for involuntary layoffs of career employees.  At the end of the year only $21.5 M of GSO funds was needed to make up the difference between LLNS costs and new funding for Fiscal Year 2008.

”LLNS ignored numbers that did not support their case, they disregarded the flexibility they had to use GSO funds, they failed to fully use alternative savings options, and they ignored historically positive end-of-year funding trends in projecting their needs.” –Dr. Robert Civiak

“The court’s ruling that age discrimination is formally back in the case is good news, and we are convinced that we will be able to proceed to trial on that theory.  We also informed the court that the official policy of the Department of Energy regarding age discrimination at the lab is NOT to enforce the over/under 40 rule that the defense attorneys have advocated.  It appears that they have been asking the judge to enforce a different rule than the government allows in these cases.” – Gary Gwilliam,  Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli, & Brewer

In a monumental, pivotal turn of events, on February 22, 2012 the court hearing the case of 130 employees laid off by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS) in May, 2008 held that the plaintiffs can proceed with their age discrimination claims. Previously, the court had ruled against including age discrimination claims in the case. In light of this major development, the court also continued the trial of the first five plaintiffs to October 1, 2012.

Andrews, et al. v. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC

The case concerns a layoff at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratorythat closely followed the lab’s transition from management by the University of California to management by LLNS, which is led by Bechtel National.  In exchange for millions in management fees, Bechtel promised to improve efficiency at the lab.

130 Former Lawrence Livermore Lab Employees: Case Resources

• Monumental Wrongful Termination Suit Looms Over Lawrence Livermore Lab 
• Rally and News Conference to be Held for 130 Former Lawrence Livermore Lab Workers on Eve of Trial
• Employee Lawsuit Exacerbates Issues at Livermore Lab- New York Times Sept 10, 2011
• Video:Fired Employees in Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Discrimination Lawsuit Tell Their Stories- GwilliamLaw Youtube channel

Please feel free to contact Gary Gwilliam of Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer for further comment at (510) 832-5411 ext. 233 or ggwilliam@giccb.com

The Andrews, et al. v. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC Case No. RG09453596.  Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint and the Department of Energy workforce restructuring policy are available upon request.

“. . . ‘Thou doth protest too much’ when considering the litigation history here which has largely been occasioned by the moves of defense counsel as to choice of forum and procedural issue put in play.”  –Robert McGuiness Alameda County Superior Court Judge

On November 4, 2011 a Alameda County jury awarded plaintiff Peter Allen, owner of Allmed Systems, Inc. in Pleasanton, California, $9,263,345 for breach of contract and intentional and negligent misrepresentation.  The case, Allmed Systems, Inc. dba LISA LASER USA and LISA LASER OHG v. Healthtronics, Inc., was one of the largest verdicts in the history of Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli, & Brewer. In an update to this verdict, our firm went back to court seeking reimbursement for attorney’s fees which Plaintiffs were entitled to per contractual agreement as the prevailing party in the litigation.

Judge Awards Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Fees of $1,745,740 Against Healthtronics, Inc.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Robert McGuiness awarded Plaintiffs’ attorneys fees of $1,745,740 in the final verdict. This makes the final judgment $11,009,090. In addition, the judge further awarded interest at a rate of 10% annum from the date the verdict was entered on November 4, 2011. As of February 4, 2012 the verdict is worth $11,284,312. The final count:

• Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Fees: $1,745,740
• Final Judgment: $11,009,090
• Interest Award:   10% annum from verdict date November 4, 2011
  

History of Events: A Retrospective

Plaintiff, a small corporation and distributor of medical products, sued a multi-national corporation.  The defendant corporation had an exclusive distribution arrangement to market plaintiff’s surgical laser.  Plaintiff contended that rather than using its best efforts to market the laser to the entire medical community, the defendant corporation tried to maximize their own profits by entering into partnerships directly with urologists and refusing to sell it outside those partnerships.  The jury found that defendant breached the contract with plaintiff and made intentional and negligent misrepresentations to plaintiff.

The plaintiff contended that the defendant breached the contract by refusing to use their “best efforts” and “good faith efforts” and breached other parts of the contract by not selling the product throughout the entire United States.  (There were no fly zones where they did not sell.)  They did not give plaintiff rolling forecasts for the sale and distribution of the laser.

Plaintiff further contended that defendants lied to him about their intent to sell the product to urologist outside the partnerships that they represented (approximately one-third of the urologists in the United States) and that defendants never intended to distribute the laser to anyone other than their own partners.

2008 Allmed Executed a Cure Provision in the Contract

In September and November of 2008, the plaintiffs executed a cure provision in the contract indicating they would withdraw from the contract under their terms because of defendant’s breach.  Correspondence between the attorneys in late September and November of 2008 disputed the anticipatory breach.  However, while negotiations were pending, the defendant sued Peter Allen and his company in Texas.  Plaintiffs contend this was in violation of the provisions of the contract which stipulated that any litigation on the contact needed to be in Alameda County Superior Court in the State of California.  The case was litigated for a year and a half in Texas before the Texas Supreme Court finally ordered the matter back to Alameda County Superior Court.  The defendants then removed to the federal court and it was remanded back.  The plaintiffs contended that the jury should know of these facts of the Texas lawsuit because of the contention for punitive damages.  However, the court excluded that evidence from the jury.  Plaintiffs contend that the evidence can still be important to show their bad faith litigation under their contention for pre-judgment interest.

Plaintiffs also contended that the defendants are liable for the tort of interference with a business relationship.  However, the Court entered a directed verdict on that cause of action and against the plaintiffs and it did not go to the jury.  However, there was evidence that the defendants has threatened other doctors with litigation if they bought lasers from the plaintiffs after the lawsuit was filed and further that they contended by their website and otherwise that they had exclusive right to sell the lasers even after the litigation had begun.

Defendants strongly disputed plaintiffs’ contentions that they had in fact spent a great deal of money developing the product and were using their best efforts to sell it.  They denied any misrepresentations and contended the Plaintiffs breached the contract by promoting a new advanced laser product in violation of the exclusive distribution contract.  They had a cross-complaint against the Plaintiff.

“Had The Lab followed their rules and laid them off in inverse order of seniority, laid them off without regard to age discrimination or otherwise, this lay off would not have occurred.” –Gary Gwilliam

In support of our upcoming trial, Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli, & Brewer held a Rally-Meeting of our 130 plaintiffs in the Lawrence Livermore Lab case. The suit filed on behalf of the 130 plaintiffs, claims that illegal widespread layoffs specifically targeted the highest salaried senior staff members who were closest to retirement. The defendant in the case is Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC, the mostly private-sector coalition managing the Lab since 2008, led by Bechtel and including University of California, BWX Technologies, Inc. and Washington Group International, Inc..

Plaintiffs Tell Their Story: Lawrence Livermore Lab Layoffs

In an exclusive look, the video above is a brief but powerful piece recorded during our Rally-Meeting. The video provides a glimpse of our five test case  plaintiffs, Andrews, Barraza, Jimenez, Olsen and Torrice, telling their stories about their treatment by The Lab, the circumstances surrounding their layoffs that day, and struggles they have faced and continue to face since losing their jobs:

Media Coverage: NBC Bay Area News

Held at the Robert Livermore Community Center, San Francisco Bay Area  NBC News’ reporter Cheryl Hurd was in attendance covering the meeting and interviewing plaintiffs and our attorneys:

The news conference, prior to the rally-meeting, provided the opportunity for the public to learn the stories and the negative effect The Lab’s actions have had on our plaintiff’s  lives since the layoffs.

In one of the largest cases in our 33 year history, Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli, & Brewer filed a lawsuit on behalf of 130 former Lawrence Livermore Lab workers who claim that illegal widespread layoffs specifically targeted the highest salaried senior staff members who were closest to retirement. The defendant in the case is Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC, the mostly private-sector coalition managing the Lab since 2008, led by Bechtel and including University of California, BWX Technologies, Inc. and Washington Group International, Inc..

Rally Against Bechtel Run Lawrence Livermore Lab

In support of our upcoming trial on February 27, 2012, we are holding a rally of 130 former employees of Lawrence Livermore Lab, who were fired in the wake of the laboratory’s transition from public to private control. The former employees, all plaintiffs in individual lawsuits against LLNS, will discuss strategy and developments as the first of their lawsuits nears trial.

News Conference Prior to Rally

The five plaintiffs in the first trial will hold a news conference prior to the group meeting.  The purpose of the news conference will be to discuss their claims against LLNS, varying from wrongful termination to age, race and disability discrimination. Their consolidated lawsuits were orginally scheduled for trial on February 6, 2012 but have been moved to February 27, 2012.

Media Access to Former Employees and Counsel

Lead Counsel Gary Gwilliam will be available to the media to explain how privatization of the lab led to the discriminatory and unlawful layoffs. In addition, media  will have access to all former employees who attend the 6 p.m. group meeting immediately following the news conference.

Time and Location

The meeting is set for Thursday January 26, 2012 at 5:15pm. The location for the meeting is Robert Livermore Community Center, 4444 East Avenue  Livermore, CA 94550.