Social Security Document Submission: June 1993

Pages 18-24 of document submission to the Social Security Administration

FAX NO. 609 235 5569 MEREDITH FINANCIAL SERVICES
Transmittal for Mrs. Estelle Jacobson c/o Mr. Edward Jacobson

Dear Stell,

I added a paragraph 6 (together with a reference to paragraph 6 in paragraph 11). I also added material to paragraph 4 and included a concluding statement. I mailed a version to you that you will get in a few days; the mailed version can be discarded. Thank you. GF

[handwritten note:]

Dear Stell,

This is the original of the document I faxed to you on Monday morning. I’m mailing it to you because there may have been a problem with the FAX transmission.

Thanks,

GF

[handwritten note:] 6/92

Dear Stell,

You once said, “You had the same problems at the other firm that you have here [at Akin Gump].” I have tested that hypothesis, and, as you will see, it makes no sense. [I am being facetious. In fact, there were striking parallels between my termination from Hogan & Hartson in February 1988 and my termination from Akin Gump in October 1991.] The situation was totally different. If you compare my situation at both firms you can clearly see that any comparison is ridiculous and absurd -- too absurd to be tenable. We can finally dismiss the silly notion that my problems at Hogan & Hartson are in any way similar to my difficulties at Akin Gump.

___________________

The following is a list of incidents at Hogan & Hartson

1. In February 1988, my supervisor at Hogan, Ms. Miriam Chilton, issued a memo to me based on information provided to her by another employee, hereinafter referred to as “unnamed employee.” [In fact, the employee was Mary Jane Coolen, an Irish Catholic.] Before issuing the memo, Miriam apparently did not investigate the truth of the allegations made by the unnamed employee, since the assertions in the memo were demonstrably false. Miriam apparently simply accepted the charges made by an employee in the department without verification and without discussing the issue with me.

The memo read as follows:

February 9, 1988
TO: Gary Freedman
FROM Miriam T. Chilton [initialed]
[unnamed employee] [initialed]

RE: Full Pass QC [Quality Control] Shelves

Many painstaking hours have gone into creating an effective file and log system for Full Pass QC. This system enables anyone assigned to Full Pass QC to easily locate the next available batch of IU’s [information units] and the corresponding documents. This system also insures that the QC’ers get a random selection of coders. It is clear that you are not following this system [emphasis added.] The documents are kept sequentially on the fourth shelf from the top. The IU’s and printouts are kept sequentially on the fifth and sixth shelves. The QC’er should take the next available batch. Please do not pick and choose the batches you prefer working on [emphasis added]. Please reorganize the shelves and take batches as they come in order. Thank you.

Cc: Espe Rebollar

2. In the following memo, dated February 10, [1988], I clarified the situation for Miriam. The memo indicates the factual errors contained in Miriam’s memo dated February 10, thereby indicating her tacit acknowledgment that the memo accurately stated the facts. [?--I have no idea what this statement means.] (One might speculate that Miriam may have perceived my memo as a humiliation or “embarrassment.”]

To: Miriam T. Chilton
FROM: Gary Freedman
RE: Full Pass QC Shelves
DATE: February 10, 1987 [sic; should read 1988]

Regarding your memo dated February 9, 1987 [sic; should read 1988] concerning the full pass QC shelves, please note that I will arrange the out-of-order batches this evening on my own time. I realize that not keeping the batches in order is a discourtesy to my colleagues and presents an uncalled for inconvenience. I will take special care in the future to keep the batches and the shelves neat.

I would like to note that I do not pick and choose batches, however. Batches that I am now working on or have completed comprise:

380
381
382
383
384

391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402

408
409

As you can see these constitute entire series’ of batches sequentially arranged. On Sunday, when I picked up a group of batches to QC I noticed that there were some batches of documents missing. Sandra [Smalls] helped me look for them but they could not be located--I was forced to skip to the next available batch of matching documents/printouts, which explains one of the gaps above.

3. On about February 23, 1988, Miriam advised me that she was terminating my assignment with Hogan & Hartson effective February 26, 1988. She explained only that there was no longer a backlog of work and that, since I was a temporary employee, my services were no longer required. (Other temporary employees were kept on, however. Miriam’s explanation for my termination was obviously not a complete statement of her rationale.)

4. On the afternoon of about February 23, 1988, shortly after being advised of my termination by Miriam, I spoke with David Kikel, the attorney who headed the project on which I had been working. He was surprised to learn of Miriam’s decision, stating that this was the first he had heard about it. After David Kikel spoke with Miriam, he explained to me only that Miriam’s decision to terminate was her prerogative and that he could not interfere.** He stated, however, that my job performance was not an issue in her decision. In sum, neither David Kikel nor Miriam Chilton offered a complete statement of the reason for my termination. (**Mr. Kikel’s refusal to interfere with Miriam’s decision to terminate was apparently consistent with Hogan policy. In about February 1987, Sheryl Ferguson stated to me that Mr. James Hourihan, the billing partner on the subject project, was at that time extremely displeased with the progress of work on document coding. Sheryl Ferguson told me that Mr. Hourihan had strongly suggested that she terminate all the document coders assigned to the project except for me (and presumably Matthew Allender); at that time the unnamed employee was assigned to the subject project. (At that time Craig Dye was working predominantly on another assignment.) Sheryl Ferguson explained to me that she refused to follow Mr. Hourihan’s suggestion because of the administrative problems that a mass firing would cause in the midst of an existing, large-scale project.)

5. In February 1987, after Sheryl Ferguson announced to the department that she was leaving Hogan and Hartson, the unnamed employee, referring to another employee, Matthew Allender, said to me: “Once she’s gone [i.e., Sheryl Ferguson], he won’t last a minute. We’ll see to that.” Matthew Allender had been assigned the task of supervisor of the document coders; he was an xceptionally diligent employee, and was the one employee in the department who had the full confidence of Sheryl Ferguson. Matthew Allender’s mature and professional attitude aroused some hostility among certain employees in the department. The statement, “Once she’s gone, he won’t last a minute,” implies that Matthew Allender was being “protected” in some way by Sheryl Ferguson, and that without her “protection” he became vulnerable to the machinations of certain employees in the department. In fact, Matthew Allender left the firm voluntarily on September 25, 1987 to pursue more promising opportunities. Some time in about June 1987 I reported to Miriam Chilton the statement, “Once she’s gone, he won’t last a minute,” but did not identify to Miriam the person who made the statement.

6. [Daniel Cutler reported to Craig Dye that on one occasion in the office the unnamed employee exposed herself sexually to Daniel Cutler].

7. At the time I was terminated from Hogan & Hartson, effective February 26, 1988, I formed the belief that an employee had made the accusation to Miriam Chilton that I had been engaged in a scheme to “generate” overtime. I wrote a memo to Miriam regarding this issue dated about February 25, 1988.

________________

If one assumes that my difficulties at Akin Gump parallel my difficulties at Hogan & Hartson, then a comparison of certain incidents at both firms sheds light on the motivations and behaviors of selected Akin Gump employees. However, as stated above, a comparison of seemingly parallel incidents at both firms leads to certain inferences and conclusions about certain Akin Gump employees that are simply not tenable. After reading the following material, any reasonable person will conclude that there is simply no truth to the assertion, “He had the same problems at Hogan that he had here.” [Again, I am being facetious.]

8. If one assumes a symmetry between Hogan and Akin Gump, then one might infer that the investigation following my charges of harassment immediately prior to my termination at Akin Gump [in late October 1991] rose to no higher level of thoroughness than did Miriam Chilton’s investigation of the false charges made about me (see paragraph 1 and paragraph 2). One might assume that the investigation at Akin Gump was simply perfunctory.

[It was about a year later that Akin Gump coworker Pat McNeil told me in a phone conversation in early July 1993: "Dennis Race didn't question anybody in the Department. He never talked to me. If he did an investigation, wouldn't you think that he'd have talked to various ones in the Department? I don't know of anyone in the Department he talked to. Maybe he only talked to selected people Chris Robertson picked, Chris' favorites."]

9. If one assumes a symmetry between Hogan and Akin Gump, then one might infer that my termination by Akin Gump management was based in part on their acceptance of false statements made by employees (see paragraph 1 and paragraph 2).

10. If one assumes a symmetry between Hogan and Akin Gump, one might infer that the employee statements on which Akin Gump management partly based its decision were recklessly or knowingly false and made with the malicious intent to damage my employment relationship with the firm (see paragraph, 1, paragraph 2; cf. paragraph 5).

11. Some time in September or early October 1991, legal assistant Katherine Harkness encouraged me to take work home and to “work all the overtime” I wanted at home. (Katherine Harkness is the legal assistant who appeared to act in a sexually suggestive manner with me during a meeting in her office on October 2, 1991 [cf. paragraph 6].) Assuming a symmetry between Akin Gump and Hogan one might infer that Katherine Harkness’ suggestion to work all the overtime I wanted at home was less than ingenuous (see paragraph 7).

[I had the paranoid idea that the suggestion that I work "all the overtime" I wanted at home was a set-up; I suspected that Katherine Harkness and my Supervisor Chris Robertson were following the "Hogan Playbook" and they wanted to later make a case that I was generating overtime. Based on this paranoid suspicion I decided not to work any overtime at home.]

(I was assigned by Chris Robertson to work on the Hoechst-Celanese chemical analysis project with Katherine Harkness in around early August 1991 [cf. paragraph 13]).

12. In early August 1991, I discussed with Chris Robertson certain instances of harassment that I had experienced at the firm, including the incident in March 1991 in which someone had left a letter opener on my desk in a position suggestive of a symbolic stabbing and the incident in which someone had left a note on my desk with the message, [Legal Assistant Administrator] Maggie Sinnott of these incidents, Chris said, “You should have told Maggie or me. We would have protected you.” (I read Chris’ statement, “We would have protected you,” as a mocking reference to the notion current in the firm that I was being protected by firm management. The notion of my being protected by firm management--perhaps including Robert Strauss**--parallels the perceptions of the unnamed employee at Hogan who believed that Matthew Allender, whose professionalism and maturity set him apart from other employees, was being protected by Sheryl Ferguson [see paragraph 5].) (**One might wish to note that the morning after a particularly difficult telephone conversation with my sister on the evening of August 1, 1990, Laurel Digweed made a[n unusual] brief appearance at one of the weekly litigation support staff meetings. Laurel Digweed and Chris Robertson discussed the supposedly foolhardy policy of Robert Strauss, whom Laurel Digweed referred to on that occasion as “our fearless leader,”

[Compare pages 6-11 of SSA Document submisson: "The Hoechst training session on April 3, 1991, which lasted about 1.5 hours, appeared to have been hastily called in that a number of key issues with regard to the design of the data base had not yet been decided upon. A number of questions had to be left unanswered, pending a final determination with regard to the data base design. The attorney Cynthia Hogue attended the meeting. At one point in the meeting Cynthia Hogue reported on a conversation she had had with David Callet with regard to Hoechst document coding. Cynthia Hogue mildly ridiculed David Callet, a highly respected partner in the firm, and concluded her remarks about him with the comment, “Oh, silly David.” [I had the paranoid feeling that David Callet had made a favorable comment about me based on information reported to firm management by Dr. Winkler--and that David Callet's comment about me aroused the jealousy of firm personnel; I had the feeling Cynthia Hogue was trying to elicit a negative facial expression from me upon hearing David Callet's name, which would then be reported back to David Callet. David Callet had been the senior attorney on Eastern Airlines and, like me, was a graduate of The Pennsylvania State University.]"]

to allow free access to the firm’s premises on weekends in order to accommodate the firm’s clients. The issue under discussion was a rash of thefts that, at that time, was plaguing the firm--specifically, the fact that employees’ desks were being broken into. In the opinion of Laurel Digweed and Chris Robertson, Mr. Strauss’s liberal policy regarding weekend access to the building aggravated the problem of theft. I read the unusual exchange between Chris Robertson and Laurel Digweed as a reaction to possible sympathetic comments made by members of firm management following the difficult telephone conversation I had with my sister the previous evening. The conversation with my sister concerned, in part, personal information I had accidentally obtained while working at Maggie Sinnott’s desk--with her knowledge--during a weekend in May 1988.

[In May 1988, I was working at Maggie Sinnott's desk. I opened a desk drawer and found a notation referring to Dr. Ernst Ticho and including his telephone number. It was Dr. Gertrude Ticho (Ernst Ticho's wife) whom Dennis Race reportedly consulted immediately prior to his decision to terminate my employment in late October 1991. I had told my sister the previous evening in a phone conversation that Maggie Sinnott had seen Ernst Ticho in consultation; a fact that my sister, I believed, had reported back to Malcolm Lassman or Earl Segal. I further believed that my disclosure enraged Maggie Sinnott, a narcissistic injury that she never forgot.

Note the close relationship between Chris Robertson and Laurel Digweed -- "partners-in-crime," so to speak. In McNeil v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, (1993) Akin Gump denied that Laurel Digweed colluded with Chris Robertson in the termination of Patricia McNeil. The U.S. District Court accepted Akin Gump's denial. Akin Gump's denial, I believe, was perjured.]

At the litigation support staff meeting on August 2, 1990, it was as if Chris and Laurel were in a symbolic way giving voice to their feeling. “If Strauss weren’t here, Freedman would be gone in a minute.” See paragraph 5 concerning issue of protection by authority figure.)

13. In about August 1991, Robert Strauss left the firm to assume a Presidential appointment. Assuming a parallel between Hogan and Akin Gump, one might infer that those employees at Akin Gump who subscribed to the notion that I was being protected by management -- including Mr. Strauss -- also believed that once Mr. Strauss was gone I would become especially vulnerable to their machinations. Compare the statement by the unnamed employee at Hogan & Hartson in reference to another putatively protected employee, “Once she’s gone, he won’t last a minute. We’ll see to that” (see paragraph 5).

14. When Mr. Dennis Race advised me, on October 29, 1991, that the management committee had decided to terminate my position with the firm, he explained that a number of employees had made certain allegations about me. Assuming that I “had the same problems at Hogan” that I had at Akin Hump, we might infer that those allegations were false, and the allegations were made solely to damage my relationship with the firm (i.e., the statements were made by the same people who were determined to see that I “didn’t last a minute”) (see paragraph 1 and paragraph 2; cf. paragraph 5). Further, we may assume that the stated rationale for my termination -- that I did not “fit” at the firm -- was an incomplete statement of the reason for my termination (see paragraph 4; cf. paragraph 2 concerning issue of “embarrassment”).

In conclusion, assuming that the behavior and motivations of an employee at Hogan & Hartson parallel the behavior and motivations of certain employees of Akin Gump, we may infer that the employee statements upon which the managers of Akin Gump partly based their decision to terminate were made by many of the same employees (1) who had earlier caused to be instigated and actively promoted a rumor that I was a homosexual**; (2) who had a propensity to engage in sexually offensive behavior in the office, including my supervisor, Mrs. Christine Robertson and legal assistant Katherine Harkness; (3) who were motivated by a desire to damage my employment relationship with Akin Gump by making recklessly or knowingly false statements; and (4) who caused to be instigated and actively promoted the belief that I was being protected by managers of Akin Gump (**Shortly after Craig Dye began working at Hogan on October 6, 1986, the unnamed employee allegedly told another employee about Craig: “He’s gay. He is definitely gay. There is no way he’s not gay.” Craig Dye is, in fact, extremely heterosexual.)