In 2008, Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, the manager and operator of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a Federally Funded Research and Development Center based in Livermore, laid off 430 employees. However, of the total amount of employees terminated, 130 of those employees claimed they were laid off without reasonable cause. The 130 terminated employees filed individual claims, consolidated into one lawsuit, against Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, as well as against the former director of the national laboratory, George Miller, and the head of staff relations for the national security company, Robert Perko. Plaintiffs’ counsel proposed that the first claims to be tried should be for plaintiffs Elaine Andrews, Marian Barraza, Mario Jimenez, Greg Olsen and James Torrice, and the proposal was approved by Judge Robert Freedman. The five plaintiffs brought causes of action for intentional age discrimination, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Jimenez additionally brought a cause of action for disability discrimination and Andrews additionally brought a cause of action for retaliation. Judge Freedman ultimately dismissed all the claims against defendants Miller and Perko, with prejudice, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. Freedman also granted defense counsel’s motion for summary judgment, in part, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims of intentional age discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress, as well as dismissing Jimenez’s claim of disability discrimination. At trial, Andrews, Barraza, Jimenez, Olsen and Torrice claimed that they were laid off in violation of their employment contracts. They alleged that Lawrence Livermore National Security did not have reasonable cause to select them for layoff under the company’s strict layoff rules. They also alleged that they were loyal, long-term employees up until the time of their termination. In addition, Andrews claimed that she was selected for termination in retaliation of her filing a sexual harassment complaint in 1994. Lawrence Livermore National Security contended that the termination of the five plaintiffs were in compliance with the contract between it and its employees. Lawrence Livermore National Security claimed the contract required it to follow its Order of Layoff policy, which it did. Counsel for Lawrence Livermore National Security argued that since all of the five plaintiffs admitted at trial that compliance with the Order of Layoff policy would constitute reasonable cause and meet their expectations under their contract with Lawrence Livermore National Security, then there was no breach of contract and no breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Counsel also argued that the 1994 sexual harassment lawsuit had no bearing on the selection of Andrews for layoff., Andrews, Barraza, Jimenez, Olsen and Torrice sought recovery of up to approximately $3.75 million in damages for the breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Andrews also sought recovery of $3 million in emotional distress damages and punitive damages in connection with her retaliation claim.