This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Feb. 18, 2016

Top Defense Results: Hopkins v. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

See more on Top Defense Results: Hopkins v. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Whistleblower retaliation

Alameda County

Superior Court Judge Brenda Harbin Forte

Defense attorneys: Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Michael A. Laurenson, Christin A. Lawler

Plaintiffs' attorney: Dean E. Royer, Law Offices of Dean Royer

Michael A. Laurenson has won back-to-back defense wins in whistleblower actions filed in Alameda County Superior Court.

Laurenson, an Oakland-based partner with Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, prevailed in such a case in 2014. The latest victory was on behalf of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory against a complaint by Deborah Hopkins, a scientist who left under disputed circumstances.

The court entered a judgment in December following a unanimous defense verdict.

Hopkins, one of the few female supervisors with the lab, accused the company of terminating her employment after she had complained about her employers' treatment of women.

Lab managers argued the termination was a layoff because inadequate funding existed for the work Hopkins did. Hopkins v. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, RG13685051 (Alameda Co. Super. Ct., filed June 25, 2013).

At trial, plaintiffs' lawyers pointed toward an email between two of her male superiors, with her direct boss saying he had reached a "terminal point" in managing Hopkins and wanted her gone.

Laurenson successfully convinced a jury, however, that Hopkins's superiors passed up earlier opportunities to retaliate against her. He also argued their motives were inconsistent with retaliation, as they had looked into further funding for her position.

"People often think of these cases as though it's a plaintiff versus a company. But really, it's a person versus another person," Laurenson said, noting that he had good witnesses to make his case. "The way you win these cases is you spend time getting to know your clients. Hopefully they are credible, good witnesses."

- Saul Sugarman

#270262

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com