microscope“The odds of this many older employees, over 40, being laid off were 1 in 1,091,000.” Randall Strauss attorney Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli, & Brewer

In order to understand the injustice of the Lawrence Livermore National Security (LLNS) layoffs of 430 employees in 2008, it is essential to weigh some of the initial facts surrounding this case. Phase II of our trial Andrews v. Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS) and Lawrence Livermore Lab, the second trial for the five plaintiffs, focuses on disproportionate age discrimination claims.

Facts Surrounding Lawrence Livermore Lab Layoffs

The following facts begin to paint a picture how LLNS disproportionately laid off workers 40+ in an age discriminatory manner.

  • Layoff History: prior to the LLNS layoffs in 2008, Lawrence Livermore Lab had not had a layoff in over 30 years
  • How Many Laid Off: LLNS laid off 430 employees
  • Lawrence Livermore National Security: LLNS a private company, that includes investors University of California and Bechtel, is tasked with managing Lawrence Livermore Lab. LLNS is not the government
  • Department of Energy: DOE did not order the layoff of workers at Lawrence Livermore Lab (LLNL)
  • 3161 Planning: this is a plan required by law to be developed whenever there is a possibility of a layoff. The DOE informed all the national security labs in the U.S. to begin preparing 3161 plans. October 2007 the DOE informed LLNS to prepare their plan
  • Goal of 3161: the goal of the 3161 plan was to do everything possible to avoid a layoff
  • Layoff Decisions: the DOE allowed LLNS to decide how many employees would be laid off if anyone at all
  • Plaintiff’s Job Performance: the plaintiff’s job performance was not an issue in this case
  • Performance Ratings: all plaintiffs were rated good to excellent in their job performance reviews by management before the layoffs. Workers made life long contributions, stayed current in their job skills, and accrued seniority which was considered an asset at the lab
  • Job Functions: all job functions performed by laid off plaintiffs continued after they were let go

The plaintiffs’ work was above standards and relevant to the Lab’s success. They were not slackers, they maintained their skills through continuous training, and these plaintiffs cared about the quality of their work and were proud of their contributions to the success of Lawrence Livermore Lab.

Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli, & Brewer

If you are interested in information regarding this case or if you have questions about legal issues with your employment, please contact attorney J. Gary Gwilliam or attorney Randall E. Strauss of the law firm of Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer  510-832-5411 ext. 233 or GGwilliam@giccb.com






December 6, 2013 | Employment Law

Share This Post

Leave a Reply