The liquid waste contractor at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site says it should not have to pay an additional $1 million to a former employee after it already paid $1.5 million last month following a jury decision in a discrimination lawsuit.
Savannah River Remediation (SRR) also said in a Nov. 8 filing in U.S. District Court that Adrienne Saulsberry should not be able to dictate interest rates on portions of the initial payment, or be awarded additional compensation based on her own estimates of how long she might have been employed at the contractor.
The filing came in response to Saulsberry’s Oct. 25 motion for miscellaneous relief, in which she is seeking $55,118 in prejudgment interest on the $420,000 in back pay SRR already paid. Saulsberry was laid off in 2013, but court documents do not detail what period of time the back pay covers.
Saulsberry also wants $203,113 “to offset the negative tax implications on her lump sum back pay award.” In addition, her motions requests $744,543 for the salary Saulsberry says she would have earned from the time SRR let her go in until 2035, when “she would have reached her normal retirement date,” according to the request. That totals $1,002,774.
The motion came after a jury in September ruled in favor of some claims Saulsberry made in her August 2016 lawsuit against the contractor. In the complaint, the former first-line manager accused SRR of wrongfully letting her go after she reported a white co-worker for making racially insensitive comments. The contractor maintained that Saulsberry, who is African-American, lost her job as part of a larger workforce reduction mandated by the Energy Department.
While the jury did not confirm those claims, it agreed that Saulsberry was qualified for subsequent first-line manager openings with SRR, and that the contractor wrongfully refused to interview her. She had worked at Savannah River Site for 23 years at the time of the layoffs.
The jury stated on Sept. 30 that at least one SRR management official acted with malice or reckless indifference that compromised Saulsberry’s rights. For that, the contractor had to pay $1 million in punitive damages, $55,000 in compensatory damages, and another $420,000 in back pay. The jury did not order her reinstatement, something Saulsberry had sought in addition to the money.
On Oct. 25, Saulsberry filed the motion for miscellaneous relief. She also asked U.S. District Judge J. Michelle Childs to require training for the contractor, so that staffers can properly evaluate former employees during the hiring process when positions become available. Under federal law, DOE contractors are supposed to strongly consider former employees who were let go under a staff reduction, as long as those employees were in good standing at the time of their release.
In its Nov. 8 response, SRR asks Childs to deny the motion for relief. Attorneys for the contractor said there is no clear evidence regarding how much Saulsberry would have earned through 2035 if she had remained with the contractor.
In her original judgment, Childs did give Saulsberry the right to seek front pay in addition to the $1.5 million she is already receiving. However, Saulsberry’s “request to increase her damages award for her alleged tax liability was not relief sought in the Complaint, nor was any evidence regarding such a request adduced during discovery or at trial,” according to the SRR response.
The contractor also took issue with Saulsberry testifying during trial that she wished to return to work, but is instead seeking front pay rather than reinstatement. “Despite Plaintiff’s post-trial change of course in direction to seek additional damages, reinstatement is a viable option for Plaintiff,” the contractor’s legal team wrote.
Childs, as of Wednesday, had not responded to Saulsberry’s motion or SRR’s request for dismissal of the motion.
