- 1 The Department of Energy Pays to Defend LANL Against Charges of Discrimination In addition to the questionable enforcement practices of the OFCCP which are exemplified in this case study Committee staff have discovered another issue which deserves the Committee's attention: the Energy Department's payment of over $10 million (in legal fees, settlement costs and jury awards to successful plaintiffs) for the Laboratory's defense against OFCCP's compliance review and for its defense of numerous employment discrimination lawsuits filed against it by LANL employees. It is suggested that the payment of such fees by federal agencies is questionable on its face and contravenes the fundamental principle underlying Executive Order 11246 must not be used to subsidize discrimination. that federal funds Since the beginning of the Kerr administration at LANL, the Lab has spent a great deal of federal funds defending itself against charges of race and sex discrimination. Whether the large number of suits in and of itself indicates the Lab's poor equal employment opportunity (EEO) performance is subject to interpretation, because the Lab's decision to settle a case does not constitute an admission of culpability. What is likely however, is that the Lab's willingness to fight discrimination suits is influenced by the Department of Energy's willingness to 3 include the amount paid in jury verdicts or out-of-court settlements. The following is a summary of employment discrimination cases which have been brought against the Lab since 1980: 1. Janet E. Wing v. Regents of the University of California d/b/a 3 Los Alamos National Laboratory." The largest amount. of legal fees underwritten by the Department of Energy on behalf of the Lab were paid to defend a class action brought on behalf of potentially 424 women scientists in promotions, salaries and employment conditions. The Lab paid over $1.4 million for legal fees on the Wing class action alone. Attornies for the women scientists argue that the costs have been substantial because the Lab has fought them on every attempt to obtain documents in discovery. The plaintiffs' attorneys have indicated to Committee staff that they expect to settle for $650,000, to be apportioned among 70 class members (notice was sent to several hundred). In addition, they expect to receive $650,000 in attorneys fees, another $50,000 in attorneys fees for actions resulting from the Lab's alleged suppression of documents, and $250,000 in costs to the class members. The Lab will have therefore spent $1.6 3 Cause No. 82-0820 HB. U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico. The case of Suzanne Stotlar v. Regents of the University of California d/b/a Los Alamos National Laboratory, Cause No. CIV 82-1000 C, (a female scientist at the Lab), was consolidated with the |