J. Gary Gwilliam

When her supervisor and a human resources official showed up at Marian Barraza's office one morning in 2008, the longtime Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory administrator was shocked. "You've got to be kidding," she said, instantly realizing she was being laid off, according to Gwilliam, whose client she became in a seven-year labor dispute. It ended last year with a $37.25 million settlement between the lab and 130 former workers, including Barraza. Andrews v. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC, RG09453596 (Alameda Super. Ct., filed May 21, 2009)

Gwilliam described the lab's treatment of Barraza and the others as "callous." Barraza had an hour to pack up. Then a guard marched her to the parking lot, where she phoned her daughter in tears. She had worked for Lawrence Livermore for 38 years, and she expected that layoffs would begin with younger workers. Gwilliam and colleagues Randall E. Strauss and Robert J. Schwartz faced the challenge of proving to jurors that the lab, the University of California and a corporate consortium led by Bechtel Corp. breached employment contracts and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by replacing older workers with younger ones.

For decades, the lab dealt in nuclear weapons security and other aspects of high-level science and technology as part of the UC system and the U.S. Department of Energy. In 2007, the Bush administration privatized it "and they began laying off their older, more experienced workers to save themselves money," Gwilliam said.

Proving it was not an easy task. "This was David v. Goliath," Gwilliam said. "We faced a 1,200-lawyer firm," with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, representing the defense. "They were funded by the U.S. government. We were on contingency."

Barraza was one of five test plaintiffs who testified at two test trials. At first, she told her story, followed by a presentation of video of depositions of managers "sputtering and struggling," Strauss said, "to explain why the layoffs were legitimate." Jurors concluded the former employees were laid off without cause and in bad faith. "They saw perfectly well what was going on," Gwilliam said. A second trial, based on statistical evidence, went less well for the plaintiffs as jurors found the lab did not inadvertently discriminate against the older workers.

"So the defense stalled for two years, taking us up on appeal," Gwilliam said, "but we had that key bad faith verdict." While the appeal was active, settlement talks went forward before a mediator. The result was highly favorable to the clients and to Gwilliam. "I'm very proud of the work our firm did," he said. "We got justice for our clients."

— John Roemer