"Although Freedman may have honestly believed that everything that happened to him had sexual overtones, the nature of the evidence precludes a finding that the Department’s contrary conclusion was in any way arbitrary or capricious." Brief of Appellee District of Columbia, Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-96 (Sept. 1, 1998).
My response? Simply because an employee offers an opinion -- in response to his employer's questions -- that everything that happened to him had sexual overtones does not mean that the employer's proffered explanation for his termination, that the employee was mentally unfit to work, is worthy of credence and in accordance with law.
Note that the Corporation Counsel seems to posit an error of logic formally known as a "false dilemma." The employer was not faced with only two questions, namely, (1) Is this employee in fact a victim of harassment? or (2) Is this employee mentally ill as evidenced by his incorrect beliefs? There's a third conclusion that the employer and the D.C. Department of Human Rights ignored: Does this employee have an incorrect opinion of his work environment, but an opinion that does not mean that he is mentally ill and unfit for employment? Perhaps I was simply wrong.