original contract with Combustion Engineering. KAPL, as well as Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, is managed and operated by Fluor Marine Propulsion Corporation, a subsidiary of Fluor Corporation. Previously operated by Bechtel Marine Propulsion Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bechtel National Incorporated. The previous operating contractor of KAPL was Lockheed Martin. KAPL's original contractor was General Electric. KAPL was one of the first laboratories to conduct research on obtaining usable power from nuclear reactors. KAPL has one computer listed on the TOP500 list of supercomputers in the world. Employee case KAPL was sued in a precedent-setting age discrimination lawsuit. In June 2008, a 7-1 decision of the United States Supreme Court placed the burden on all employers to prove that a layoff affecting older workers is based on reasonable factors other than age, reversing a lower court that placed the burden of proving age discrimination on the dismissed employees. The long-running case, Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab (Docket 06-1505), was filed by 28 of 31 employees dismissed during downsizing at the lab in 1996. The Lab had instituted a voluntary buyout plan but could not attain the desired staff reduction. It developed a matrix to rank employees based on three factors: performance, flexibility and criticality of their jobs, and added points for years of service. All of the dismissed employees were at least 40 years old. Twenty-eight of those dismissed sued in January 1997 under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. A jury found for the employees in December 2000, and judgment was rendered in 2002. The Lab appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, but the judgment was upheld in 2004. KAPL appealed again and, while its petition to the US Supreme Court was pending, a related case (Smith v. City of Jackson [Docket 03-1160]) caused the Court in 2006 to vacate the judgment in favor of the defendants (Meacham II). The 17 remaining plaintiffs (9 had settled their claims) petitioned the US Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled in their favor on technical grounds. The case was remanded to the 2nd Circuit Court, where the original judgment was finally reinstated in 2009 (Meacham III). The importance of this case stems from its conclusion that employers' actions or policies that appear reasonable and neutral but nevertheless have a disparate impact on older workers are discriminatory in practice. In the majority opinion, Justice Souter wrote, “There