Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP

  • Overview
  • Attorneys
  • Our Work
  • Blog
  • Contact

LVBH Wins $325,000 Jury Verdict Against Lawrence Berkeley Labs

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
Linkedin

On May 24, 2019, LVBH won a $325,000 jury verdict in Alameda County Superior Court against the UC Regents and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on behalf of Kathy Eidson, a long-time employee of the Lab.  Ms. Eidson began working at the Lab in 2001 as an electrician.  In 2006, she fell off a ladder and suffered an injury, requiring extensive recovery.  After she returned to work with some work restrictions, including that she could not work from a ladder. 

In February 2011, she was moved into a new position, with a new title and raise.  A few months later, Ms. Eidson discovered that all the other employees in her department who were doing the same work had been given a different title (technical supervisor) and were paid more.  All of Ms. Eidson’s colleagues were men.  Finding this disparity, she began to complain about the failure to properly classify and promote her.

At trial, the jury heard evidence that at the end of 2011, Ms. Eidson got a new boss, who began making disparaging comments about women in the trades.  Over the next two years, he repeatedly made comments about her skills and perceptions among her colleagues about her, and then began stripping her of supervisory duties.  In January 2014, Ms. Eidson filed a formal complaint for discrimination, and failure to pay her commensurate with her male colleagues.  In response to the complaint, the Lab hired a former HR employee of the Lab as an “outside investigator.”  Although he did not reach any conclusion about the discrimination allegations, he found that Ms. Eidson was credible, that there appeared to be a problem with her pay and classification, and that her Boss had rated her performance worse than her male comparators.  The investigator also reported that when he interviewed the boss, the boss made comments about her that reflected gender-stereotyping.  

The Lab did not take any further action with respect to the complaint.  However, because the Lab claimed that Ms. Eidson’s relationship with her boss was “broken,” the Lab pushed her to move to another department.  Ms. Eidson twice rejected the suggestion.  Then, the Lab unilaterally reassigned her, claiming that the restrictions issued to Ms. Eidson following her work injury in 2006 prevented her from continuing in her position. Although the written restrictions said only she could not work off ladders (and Ms. Eidson had been doing the job for years), the Lab took the position that she could not climb on ladders and required that she transfer into another department doing documentation.  So, she was forced to move.

After a three week trial in Alameda County Superior Court, Ms. Eidson prevailed before the jury on her claims for disability discrimination, retaliation and failure to prevent discrimination, and was awarded $325,000.  

Related Posts:

  • California Corrections Department to pay $2.3 million to decorated special agents for claims of unrelenting gender bias April 15, 2021
  • LVBH wins appellate victory for courageous #MeToo survivor October 2, 2021
  • Special Agent with over 25 years of experience in law enforcement sues California Department of Justice, alleging gender… April 15, 2022
  • LVBH prevails in writ proceeding on behalf of sexual assault victim May 11, 2021

More Posts

  • CEB Features Jean Hyams Speaking on Implicit Bias and Jury Selection

    CEB Features Jean Hyams Speaking on Implicit Bias and Jury Selection

  • Rebecca Kagin selected for Sonoma Magazine’s Lawyers of Excellence Two Years in a Row

    Rebecca Kagin selected for Sonoma Magazine’s Lawyers of Excellence Two Years in a Row

  • Berkeley Law program features Jean Hyams on settling sexual harassment cases

    Berkeley Law program features Jean Hyams on settling sexual harassment cases

  • Wendy Musell weighs in on gig workers as employees

    Wendy Musell weighs in on gig workers as employees

  • LVBH recognized as a “Best Law Firm” in Northern California

    LVBH recognized as a “Best Law Firm” in Northern California

  • LA Times calls on Wendy Musell to discuss the impact of a sexual misconduct settlement

    LA Times calls on Wendy Musell to discuss the impact of a sexual misconduct settlement

  • LVBH adds two more members to its superhero legal team

    LVBH adds two more members to its superhero legal team

  • Wendy Musell discusses California bill requiring salary ranges on job listings

    Wendy Musell discusses California bill requiring salary ranges on job listings

  • Plaintiff Magazine spotlights Darci Burrell

    Plaintiff Magazine spotlights Darci Burrell

  • LVBH attorneys named once again to the 2022 Northern California Super Lawyers list

    LVBH attorneys named once again to the 2022 Northern California Super Lawyers list

Tags

#metoo award civil rights class action COVID defamation disability discrimination employee rights employment agreement employment arbitration agreements employment law employment lawyer blog equal pay ethnicity harassment failure to prevent harassment family medical leave forced arbitration gender discrimination human resources immigrant rights mandatory arbitration medical leave retaliation minimum wage misclassification national origin harassment Oakland Raiders cheerleader lawsuit public employees race discrimination racial harassment reasonable accommodation retaliation retaliation lawsuit sacramento sexual abuse sexual assault sexual harassment Super Lawyers uc regents University of California wage and hour wage theft whistleblowers women lawyers working families wrongful termination

LVBH Logo

CONTACT US

510-318-7700
info@levyvinick.com

Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1300
Oakland, California 94612

  • Overview
  • Attorneys
  • Our Work
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Press Releases

Copyright © 2023 Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams · website: Amanda McCoy · Log in

Disclaimer

Nothing in this website is intended in any way to form an attorney-client relationship or any other contract. It is designed solely to provide general information about the practice at Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP.

Be mindful of any deadlines you have approaching that relate to your legal situation, and make sure that you meet them. Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP does not assume any responsibility for advice given regarding any aspect of your case until you have a signed legal services agreement engaging the firm’s representation.

Though the firm provides free initial consultations, the firm retains complete discretion in every case to decide whether or not to provide a consultation to any person. Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP makes no guarantees, warranties, or predictions about your case, and past success at the firm does not ensure future results will be the same.

Disclaimer

Nothing in this website is intended in any way to form an attorney-client relationship or any other contract. It is designed solely to provide general information about the practice at Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP.

Be mindful of any deadlines you have approaching that relate to your legal situation, and make sure that you meet them. Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP does not assume any responsibility for advice given regarding any aspect of your case until you have a signed legal services agreement engaging the firm’s representation.

Though the firm provides free initial consultations, the firm retains complete discretion in every case to decide whether or not to provide a consultation to any person. Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP makes no guarantees, warranties, or predictions about your case, and past success at the firm does not ensure future results will be the same. The photos on this website do not reflect actual attorney-client interactions.