Posted on 02/14/2007 7:47:48 AM PST by CedarDave
A jury delivered a strong— and expensive— message to Sandia National Laboratories on Tuesday, awarding more than $4 million to a cybersecurity analyst who was fired after going "over the fence" to the FBI with information about national security breaches.
The 13-person state district court jury determined that Sandia's handling of Shawn Carpenter's termination was "malicious, willful, reckless, wanton, fraudulent or in bad faith."
"If they (Sandia) have an interest in protecting us, they certainly didn't show it with the way they handled Shawn," said juror Ed Dzienis, a television editor.
The verdict was a "clear and unambiguous" message to Sandia and other contractors "that the national security, and not the interest of the corporation, is and must always be their primary concern," Carpenter attorney Phil Davis said.
Jurors awarded Carpenter $387,537 in lost wages, benefits and damages for emotional distress resulting from his January 2005 firing by Sandia Corp., which operates the lab.
But the jury's big message was in the punitive damages. Jurors, after hearing a week of testimony before Judge Linda Vanzi, more than doubled the $2 million requested by Carpenter attorneys ...
Carpenter, whose job involved finding breaches in Sandia's computer networks, followed the trail of computer hackers around the globe in the latter half of 2004. His "backhacking" discovered stolen documents about troop movements, body armor and more, but he testified that his bosses told him to concern himself only with Sandia.
After agonizing discussions with his wife, then a Sandia researcher and later a White House fellow, he instead reached out almost immediately to the Army Research Laboratory. He eventually was passed to the FBI and shared his findings with that agency during a series of meetings, some of which he recorded.
(Excerpt) Read more at abqjournal.com ...
Not a good track record for Sandia IMO.
More:
Carpenter now works for a State Department contractor in the Washington, D.C., area, and has a top-secret clearance. His wife is Jennifer Jacobs, a nuclear engineer and West Point graduate who testified in the trial.
I imagine it will get reduced on appeal. This wasn't a slip and fall case. I would want someone who found out this information to go to the FBI. He told his superiors and they told him that it was not their concern. I'm glad he took the action he did; apparently it was not an easy decision for him.
Anyone else feel the headline is totally out of synch with the rest of the article?
What precedent are you basing your "Excessive award." comment on? Are you a lawyer or something?
How do you know what "should have been" awarded? The jury awarded more than twice what the plaintiff asked for in punitive damages because their behavior was so outrageous.
The Sandia officials responsible for this mess should be held accountable for their actions. Where the heck is Congress in all of this? Where is the DOE Inspector General? Where is the National Nuclear Security Administration officials? Don't they have some kind of site office on Kirtland for the express purpose of Sandia oversight?
These people are simply out of control, and have been for some time.
The verdict *will* most likely get reduced on appeal, but your 3x "rule" is pure BS.
The most helpful guidance in the U.S. Supreme Court's April 7 punitive damages decision is the observation that punitive damages in a single-digit ratio to compensatory damages are more likely to survive due process scrutiny for excessiveness, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama declared April 24 in a diet supplement case (McClain v. Metabolife International Inc., N.D. Ala., No. 01-AR-1801-S, 4/24/03).
Acting on that signal, Judge William M. Acker Jr. reduced one punitive award that was 20 times the compensatory damages on a product liability claim to a ratio of 9:1, while leaving unscathed other awards at various single-digit ratios, as well as one $25,000 punitive award at a 25:1 ratio.
The case was brought by four consumers of Metabolife 356 diet pills. They alleged that the pills, which contain ephedra and caffeine, were defective and unsafe, and that the labels on the bottles misrepresented that the pills had been "independently laboratory tested for safety."
The jury found in favor of each of the consumers, awarding one of them $500,000 actual damages on her product liability claim under the Alabama Extended Manufacturers Liability Doctrine and $1 million punitive damages. The second consumer was awarded $50,000 actual AEMLD damages and $1 million punitive damages on that claim, plus $150,000 actual damages for fraud and nonduplicative punitive damages of $1 million on that claim. The third consumer was awarded $1,000 actual AEMLD damages and $25,000 punitive damages on that claim, plus $10,000 fraud damages and $75,000 punitive damages for fraud. The fourth consumer was awarded $7,500 actual AEMLD damages and no punitive damages.
Why a misleading headline? He worked for Sandia, he is a (white-hat) hacker, and he got $4 million. Although instead of "gets" maybe "wins" or "is awarded" would be better.
Still, I like the title. It shows that not all hackers are bad people. To the contrary, this one is a great patriot for doing the right thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.