Google

Age Discrimination Trial Date Set in Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC

by Gary Gwilliam on May 21, 2013

Gavel brownA trial date of September 9, 2013 has been set in the second phase of our case Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Robert Freedman set the trial date at a May 16th hearing. In Phase One of the trial, an Alameda County Jury returned a verdict in favor of the first five plaintiffs in the case for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The award is $2.7 million for plaintiffs Elaine Andrews, Marian Barraza, Mario Jimenez, Greg Olsen, and James “Rocky” Torrice. The next phase involves age discrimination claims.

Age Discrimination at Lawrence Livermore Lab

The second phase of Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC (LLNS) includes the first five test plaintiffs’ claims for age discrimination. All 130 plaintiffs in this case have remaining claims for age discrimination. The jury’s findings during the upcoming trial will impact the remaining 125 plaintiffs’ age discrimination claims.

Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore Lab Hearing June 3, 2013 

During the initial May 16th hearing, attorneys for Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC argued that they need considerable additional discovery before they will be prepared to try the second phase of the case. Included in this additional discovery are depositions of all 130 plaintiffs.

Although attorneys for LLNS attempted to persuade Judge Freedman to delay the trial, he ordered the September 9, 2013 trial date to remain on the calendar. In addition, Judge Freedman ordered a further hearing on June 3, 2013 to discuss the logistical issues involved in the age discrimination case.

Plaintiffs represented by Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer are ready, willing, and able to try the case on September 9, 2013.

 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share

{ 0 comments }

Whistleblower Lawsuit Filed by Former SFPD Internal Affairs Attorney

by Gary Gwilliam on May 17, 2013

whistleblower lawsuitKelly O’Haire, former internal affairs attorney for the San Francisco Police Department, was terminated by SFPD Chief Greg Suhr less than a month after he became SFPD Chief in 2011.  In 2009 Ms. O’Haire had handled several of then-Deputy Chief Suhr’s disciplinary actions that could have resulted in his termination, including his failure to properly report and arrest a domestic violence offender.  Ms. O’Haire filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court against Chief Suhr and the City of San Francisco for retaliation and wrongful termination. Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer is representing O’Haire.

With a 27-year career in government service, Ms. O’Haire was a San Rafael police officer and Marin County deputy district attorney prior to being hired by the SFPD in 2006 to run internal affairs legal cases. Her job responsibility involved investigating and prosecuting disciplinary actions against members of the police department. In this role, O’Haire prosecuted Suhr and brought a motion to bring his prior discipline into evidence.  This action could have led to termination of Suhr.  Ms. O’Haire was threatened by Suhr’s lawyers who told her she did not “know how this City worked,” and that this was going to be a future employment problem for then-Chief Heather Fong, O’Haire, and others involved.

Ms. O’Haire has had a difficult time finding employment since she was fired and has had to take lower paying jobs outside of law. She describes the last 2 years since her termination as “the worst 2 years of my life.”

As lead attorney for Ms. O’Haire’s case, I expect to call many top officials in the City and County of San Francisco as witnesses, including Mayor Ed Lee, District Attorney George Gascon (who was Police Chief prior to Suhr), and former Chief Heather Fong.

Share

{ 0 comments }

Hearing Set to Determine Next Trial Date in Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC

May 15, 2013

“Now that the jury has found that LLNS acted in bad faith and did not have reasonable cause to select these loyal long-term employees for layoff, we expect to be able to prove that the entire layoff was unfair to the lab’s older workers” –Randall Strauss co-lead trial counsel The $2,700,000 jury verdict in favor [...]

Share
Read the full article →

Plaintiffs Awarded $2.7 Million in Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Against Lawrence Livermore Lab

May 13, 2013

Nearly five years since their 2008 layoff, the first five plaintiffs in Andrews v. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC received justice for their wrongful terminations. An Alameda County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs Elaine Andrews, Marian Barraza, Mario Jimenez, Greg Olsen, and James Torrice for the bad faith violation of their employment [...]

Share
Read the full article →

“Friendly Fire” Comment Illustrates Pattern of Age Discrimination at Lawrence Livermore Lab

May 6, 2013

Gary Gwilliam: “Did you know anyone else who returned to the SASS team to take over the duties that Marian Barraza held before she was terminated?” Amy Hussain: “Yes.  .  .  She was an administrative assistant. . . Debbie Spooner.” Gary Gwilliam: “Do you know when this person came into the SASS team to take [...]

Share
Read the full article →

Closing Argument Showcases Lawrence Livermore National Security Discriminatory Practices

May 3, 2013

“This fiasco of a layoff.  .  .  they (Lawrence Livermore National Security) did it with absolutely no concern for the human cost of their decisions.” –Randall Strauss Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli, & Brewer (during closing argument) Our closing argument in the case, Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC, was a culmination of over a [...]

Share
Read the full article →

Explosive Testimony in Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore National Security Points to Age Discrimination

April 23, 2013

“He (Guy Donovan) has a great enough retirement I don’t know why he doesn’t just go.” –Darlene Cross, SASS Group Leader Lawrence Livermore National Lab Gary Gwilliam: “Do you remember the day of the layoff? What were you doing on the day of the layoff?” Amy Hussain Lawrence Livermore Lab analyst: “We were told to [...]

Share
Read the full article →

Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC: Layoff Implementation Review Committee Focus of Interim Summary

April 11, 2013

On April 8, 2013, Judge Freedman allowed the attorneys for both sides to present an interim summary of the evidence so far presented.  Our interim summary, in Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC, provided jurors with Plaintiffs’ view of the evidence, and testimony supporting our plaintiffs’ claims of breach of contract and breach of [...]

Share
Read the full article →

Judge in Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC Grants Request for Interim Summary

April 5, 2013

In what is a positive development in our case, Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC (LLNS), the judge has granted our request to give “interim summary.” We will be allowed to present our interim summary on the afternoon of Monday April 8th as the trial resumes after a week off that began April 1st [...]

Share
Read the full article →

Opening Statements Begin in Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC

March 20, 2013

Trial proceedings in Andrews vs. Lawrence Livermore National Security (LLNS) are underway this week with both sides presenting their opening statements. The trial held in Alameda County Superior Court, involves five of the 130 plaintiffs. In their lawsuit, the five plaintiffs allege LLNS, the mostly private-sector coalition managing the Lab since 2007 led by San [...]

Share
Read the full article →

← Previous Entries