You can go to our
Newsletters.
Or search for a word here:
Your Tax Dollars Pay LLNL´s Legal Costs
LLNL´s litigation expenses were discussed in the March 13
issue of The Recorder, a Bay Area legal newspaper.
The Recorder requested LLNL´s legal costs under the
Freedom of Information Act and received these estimates from the
Department of Energy (DOE):
|
Year | Estimated Legal Costs
|
|
2002 | $5.46 million
|
|
2001 | $2.7 million
|
|
2000 | $2.08 million
|
|
1999 | $2.47 million
|
These include legal expenses for Kotla v. Regents
(a wrongful termination suit, see Spring 2002 Newsletter),
Singleton (see Case Updates), and Doggett
(a whistleblower case scheduled for trial in September).
However, the 2002 estimate may increase because LLNL is
still accounting for some cases such as Ling
(a class action filed in 2001 alleging discrimination against
Asian-American scientists) and Zipoli
(a suit alleging that two guards who expressed concerns about
security were unfairly fired).
Last year, Representative Edward Markey called for a General Accounting
Office (GAO) probe of litigation costs for DOE contractors
such as the University of California. Markey´s reaction
to the findings was "This is an unacceptable practice ...
first the lab fires the whistle-blowers. Then it fights them
in court to the tune of millions of dollars worth of legal fees.
Finally, it turns around and bills DOE, which passes the bill
along to the taxpayers, who were under the mistaken impression
that the labs were spending their money protecting the homeland
instead of arguing in court."
More of Markey´s comments about these expenses were quoted in the
April 30 issue of the East Bay Express
(www.eastbayexpress.com)
in a cover story about Michelle Doggett´s whistleblower
retaliation suit against LLNL. In addition to details about
Doggett´s suit alleging that she was punished for
bringing financial improprieties to light, the article
describes other cases of apparent cover-up and retaliation at LLNL,
dating from the mid-1980s. At that time, a common argument for
keeping UC in charge of the lab was that, as a public institution,
it could offer greater protection to whistleblowers than a
private contractor. History suggests this argument may be mistaken.
-wage@wage.org-