EEOC -- DIrty Work Afoot

December 20, 1996
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

Chairman Gilbert F. Casellas
U.S. EEOC
1801 L Street, NW
Washington, DC

Dear Chairman Casellas:

Enclosed is a collection of documents relating to an employment issue, returned to me by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") under cover letter dated December 16, 1996.

It had been my belief that the following matters fall within the investigative jurisdiction of the FBI, rather than the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

1. The affirmation by the D.C. Office of Corporation Counsel that my former supervisor's statements that I might be armed and homicidal and poised to carry out a homicidal assault on the employer's premises were not evidence of a hostile, offensive or intimidating work environment. See Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld, D.C. Department of Human Rights investigation no. 92-087-P(CN), record on appeal at page 41;

2. The affirmation by the D.C. Office of Corporation Counsel that my former employer's action in securing its premises against a homicidal assault, which it (reasonably) feared I might commit, was not evidence of a hostile, offensive or intimidating work environment; See Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld, D.C. Department of Human Rights investigation no. 92-087-P(CN), record on appeal at page 41;

3. The express affirmation by the D.C. Office of Corporation Counsel that a co-worker's statement that I might be armed and homicidal and poised to carry out a homicidal assault on the employer's premises was based on that co-worker's genuine fear and was not evidence of a hostile, offensive or intimidating work environment. See Brief of Respondent in Opposition to Petition for Review of no Probable Cause Determination by Department of Human Rights at 6, Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights, D.C. Superior Court no. MPA 95-14 (final order issued June 10, 1996);

4. The filing by the employer with a state human rights agency of apparently false and defamatory sworn statements relating to my mental stability and potential for violence. Cf. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976); Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341(1976); and Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972);

5. The action of the employer in shifting the burden of paying disability benefits from a private insurer onto the U.S. Social Security Administration. Cf. Zuniga v. Kleberg County Hosp., Kingsville, Tex., 692 F.2d 986 (5th Cir. 1982);

6. The payment by the U.S. Social Security Administration of approximately $50,000 in disability benefits payments, partly on the basis of evidence apparently fabricated by the employer;

7. The results of comprehensive psychological testing that fail to disclose the existence of a mental disability of a nature that would render an individual unemployable or potentially violent as asserted by the employer in sworn statements filed with a state human rights agency, and which putative mental disability forms the basis of disability benefits paid by the U.S. Social Security Administration; and

8. The filing by the employer of inconsistent sworn statements in two unrelated job termination proceedings: specifically, a state human rights agency investigation and a federal court unlawful termination civil action arising under Title VII. See Employer's Response to Interrogatories and Document Request, Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld, D.C. Department of Human Rights investigation no. 92-087-P(CN) (record on appeal at pages 135-140); and McNeil v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, D.D.C. no. 93-0477 (memorandum opinion and order filed Nov. 29, 1993) (Joyce Hens Green, J.)

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

cc: Howard M. Shapiro, FBI General Counsel, ext. 4-6829