Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory

185 F.Supp.2d 193

Clifford B. MEACHAM; Thedrick L. Eighmie; and Allen G. Sweet, all individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated; and James R. Quinn, PhD; Deborah L. Bush; Raymond E. Adams; Wallace Arnold; William F. Chabot; Allen E. Cromer; Paul M. Gundersen; Clifford J. Levendusky; Bruce E. Palmatier; Neil R. Pareene; William C. Reynheer; John K. Stannard; David W. Townsend; and Carl T. Woodman, Plaintiffs, v. KNOLLS ATOMIC POWER LABORATORY, aka KAPL, Inc.; Lockheed Martin, Inc.; and John J. Freeh, individually and as an employee of KAPL and Lockheed Martin, Defendants.

James R. Quinn, PhD, Plaintiff, v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, Inc., aka Kapl, Inc.; Lockheed Martin, Inc.; and John J. Freeh, individually and as an employee of KAPL and Lockheed Martin, Defendants.

Nos. 97-CV-12 (DRH), 97-CV-45 (DRH).

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

February 13, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Berger & DuCharme, LLP (John B. DuCharme, Joseph C. Berger, of counsel), Clifton Park, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. (Michael R. Zeller, Alesia J. Kantor, of counsel), New York City, Nixon Peabody LLP (John E. Higgins, of counsel), Albany, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

HOMER, United States Magistrate Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
  I. Introduction .................................................................... 201
 II. Background ...................................................................... 201
     A. The IRIF ..................................................................... 201
     B. The Trial .................................................................... 203
III. Defendants' Motion .............................................................. 204
     A. Timeliness ................................................................... 204
     B. Liability .................................................................... 206
        1. Plaintiffs' Prima Facie Case .............................................. 206
           a. Facially Neutral Employment Practice ................................... 207
           b. Sufficiency of Plaintiffs' Statistical Evidence ........................ 208
           c. Evidence of Multiple Reqression Analyses ............................... 211
        2. Defendants' Burden of Production .......................................... 212
        3. Discrimination ............................................................ 214
        4. Willfulness ............................................................... 215
        5. Liability Under the HRL ................................................... 216
     C. Damages ...................................................................... 217
        1. Back pay .................................................................. 218
        2. Front pay ................................................................. 219
        3. Emotional distress ........................................................ 219
        4. Individual Plaintiffs ..................................................... 221
           a. Raymond E. Adams ....................................................... 221
           b. Wallace Arnold ......................................................... 221
           c. Deborah L. Bush ........................................................ 222
           d. William R. Chabot ...................................................... 224
           e. Allen E. Cromer ........................................................ 224
           f. Thedrick L. Eighmie .................................................... 225
           g. Paul M. Gundersen ...................................................... 225
           h. Clifford J. Levendusky ................................................. 226
           i. Clifford B. Meacham .................................................... 227
           j. Bruce E. Palmatier ..................................................... 228
           k. Neil R. Pareene ........................................................ 229
           l. William C. Reynheer .................................................... 231
           m. John K. Stannard ....................................................... 232
           n. Allen G. Sweet ......................................................... 233
           o. David W. Townsend ...................................................... 234
           p. Carl T. Woodman ........................................................ 235
 IV. Plaintiffs' Motions ............................................................. 237
     A. Prejudgment Interest ......................................................... 237
     B. Postjudgment Interest ........................................................ 238

   C. Upward Adjustment for Increased Taxes ................ 238
   D. Attorneys' Fees and Costs ............................ 238
      1. Attorneys' Fees ................................... 239
         a. Hours Expended ................................. 239
         b. Hourly Rates ................................... 241
         c. Adjustments .................................... 241
   2. Costs ................................................ 242
V. Conclusion .............................................. 245

I. Introduction

The twenty-six plaintiffs, all over age forty, were employed by defendant Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, Inc. ("KAPL") until 1996 when their employment was terminated in an involuntary reduction-in-force (IRIF). Plaintiffs then commenced this class action¹ against KAPL, Lockheed Martin, Inc., KAPL's parent company, and John J. Freeh ("Freeh"), KAPL's President and General Manager, alleging that their terminations violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and the New York Human Rights Law (HRL), N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq. (McKinney 2001).² Plaintiffs allege that the violations resulted from both disparate treatment and disparate impact. Following trial, a jury returned verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs on their disparate impact theory, in favor of defendants on the disparate treatment theory, and awarded damages totaling $5,077,285.33. Judgment was entered on the verdicts. Am. J. (Docket No. 133).

Presently pending are (1) defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial and remittitur (Docket No. 137); (2) plaintiffs' motion for prejudgment interest, postjudgment interest and an upward adjustment of damages for increased taxes (Docket No. 138); and (3) plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs (Docket No. 197). For the reasons which follow, defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law is denied and their motion for a new trial and remittitur is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs' motion for prejudgment interest is granted in part and denied in part, their motion for post-judgment interest is granted and their motion for an upward adjustment of damages for increased taxes is denied. Finally, plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs is granted.

II. Background

A. The IRIF

KAPL operates a laboratory to design, build and test prototype naval nuclear reactors and to train United States Navy personnel in their operation and maintenance. KAPL employs approximately 2,700 individuals principally at sites in Niskayuna and West Milton, New York, both within forty miles of Albany. KAPL operates the laboratory under a "cost-plus" contract between the United States Department of Energy (DOE) and Lockheed Martin by which KAPL receives reimbursement for expenses it incurs plus a percentage of those expenses. The contract is overseen by DOE's Schenectady Naval Reactors Office (SNR).

The twenty-six prevailing plaintiffs were employed in exempt, or salaried, positions in various of KAPL's sixteen sections.³ The sixteen sections were headed by managers who reported directly to Freeh. Each section was also subdivided into sections headed by subsection managers. Certain subsections were further subdivided into units headed by unit managers.

In March 1994, KAPL began formulating a plan to reduce its workforce by approximately 140 positions in accordance with budget projections coordinated between KAPL and SNR. KAPL conceived and adopted a "Workforce Adjustment Plan" (WAP) to achieve the desired reduction in two stages. The first was the "Voluntary Separation Plan" (VSP) by which KAPL offered early retirement to employees with at least twenty years of service in return for the payment of $20,000. The second was the IRIF. In the Fall of 1995, KAPL offered the VSP to its employees. Ultimately, 107 employees applied and were approved for the VSP.

In November 1995, KAPL proceeded with the IRIF.⁴ First, KAPL identified the positions within the sixteen sections which were to be eliminated. This "excess skills analysis" sought to determine those positions which KAPL could terminate with the least adverse effect on KAPL's operations. These included, for example, specialized positions in reduced demand. After the employees in those excess positions were identified, the section, subsection and unit managers were directed to evaluate the individuals in those positions by a prescribed process which resulted in the assignment of a numerical score for each employee subject to the IRIF.

First, the managers assigned scores of from zero to ten points to each such employee in four categories: length of service, work performance, criticality to KAPL's operations, and the flexibility of their talents. For length of service, each employee subject to the IRIF was given one point for every two years of service to a maximum of ten points.⁵ For work performance the subject employees were assigned scores based on their previous two...