Jun 22, 2008

LANL Workers Claim Breach of Contract

On Friday the New Mexican reported another lawsuit by LANL employees. Details are few as yet. A case summary is available for download here. The full text of the New Mexican article can be read here. Hopefully our readers can provide the rest of the story.
6/20/2008
One former and two current Los Alamos National Laboratory employees have filed a lawsuit against Los Alamos National Security LLC, which operates the lab, alleging retaliation and breach of contract.

Former employee Maxwell Sandford and current employees Christina Files and Christine Treml accused the lab of removing them from a classified project after they raised concerns about security procedures.

In the suit, all three say they were removed from project work, relocated off the immediate premises and barred from entering the building where the project was located. They also say they were denied access to retrieve personal belongings for months, were stripped of high-level security clearances, and were reassigned to insignificant nontechnical work where they were harassed and humiliated.

Through their attorney, Timothy L. Butler of Santa Fe, the three are seeking actual and compensatory damages, punitive damages and equitable relief to remedy the wrongs and prevent future violations.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

I wish them luck but imo, they're in for a very long and frustrating process based on past situations like this one.

Anonymous said...

"Breach of contract"? What contract? Since when do LANL employees have contracts to work on a specific project? Are we talking about IPO's here? That's a joke.

"...after they raised questions about security procedures..." Pretty standard lawsuit speak. The Lab under UC would simply settle this suit.

Bintz and Dogliani are named. That's ADTR.

Anonymous said...

Breach of Contract? Good luck!

Anonymous said...

"...accused the lab of removing them from a classified project after they raised concerns about security procedures."

Is anyone surprised by this type of action by LANS management? Anybody at all?

Anonymous said...

It's called "employment at will!"

Anonymous said...

"...after they raised questions about security procedures..."
This is a serious offense.
In the UC days, somebody above them might have gotten a verbal reprimand. Now, under LANS, raising these kind of questions might affect Mikey's bonus. We cannot allow that to happen.

Anonymous said...

Is this the improvement in security we were going to get with LANS?

Oh wait it's just an improvement in security *headlines*.

Oh wait it's not an improvement in even that.

Wait, what's going on again? I thought LANS havd fixed all this stuff. Or did they just not buy enough congress-critters? They need to get one less marble exec suite and just buy a few more legislators. That will do it.

Anonymous said...

"...they raised questions about security procedures..."

Translation: They made complete pains in the ass of themselves by complaining about and questioning every little security rule they didn't like or thought they could pick apart the logic of. You can be sure they weren't "questioning" whether security was tight enough. This kind of disruptive behavior has become all too common, and is severly disruptive to the workplace. This is passive aggression, plain and simple, and it shouldn't be tolerated. I bet they were surprised when management actually did something about it. You don't lose your clearance for pushing for tighter security.

Anonymous said...

Mikey speaks as anonymous at 6/23/08 12:26 PM

Anonymous said...

I think 12:26 pm. is right on the money, that's what I heard too. They didn't like having anyone review and suggest changes to their routine, so they kicked up a big fuss and were shocked when they didn't get their way.

Anonymous said...

You can lose your position if you tell LANL computer security people that LANL staff are not following classified computing rules.

Anonymous said...

...6/23/08 1:55 PM

Not true. GL is on "vacation". DGL Barry Charles is in charge.

Anonymous said...

1226 PM. 06/23. RFs is closed. Who do think did that? Unions? HVAC air ducts, or the cost to clean them.? Management? Maybe the envivorment people ? Anyway some people made lots of money. Most of them are here now in LA.. Good Luck.

Anonymous said...

Some things never change--arrogant butt-head cowboys for example and, of course, LANL.

Darko said...

In my many years at LANL I've seen it go both ways.

Some folks are whiney losers who use the system and the law to jack up their whiney-loserdom...

And others are serious, high-minded professionals who take their work and the spirit (as well as the letter) of safety, security, contracts, etc. quite seriously.

The former tend to get settlements and the latter get ground into a spot.

Best of luck to the latter and good riddance to the former... too bad most of us can't tell just by guessing which these particular people are.

But damn it sure is fun to speculate wildly about other people's livelihoods, their careers, and other things we don't know anything about!

It's what most of us die-hard blog-heads are here for!


- Darko

PS... StrangeO just popped up again after a long winter's nap!

Anonymous said...

6/23/08 12:26PM said,
"Translation: They made complete pains in the ass of themselves by complaining..."

Translation: I'm a frig'n idiot, but I'm in charge.

Anonymous said...

6:49 am:
"6/23/08 12:26PM said,
"Translation: They made complete pains in the ass of themselves by complaining..."

Translation: I'm a frig'n idiot, but I'm in charge."

Translation: Anyone I don't agree with is a frig'n idiot, especially if they're in charge, and they're obviously less intelligent and knowledgeable than I am, about every subject.

Anonymous said...

Bintz and the rest of the foodchain are about to be hit with a second suit.

Frank Young said...

I'll do a blog post as soon as it's filed. Let us know the filing date.