Tuesday, November 22, 2011

GW Psychiatric Treatment: Refusal of Psychiatrist to Contact Akin Gump

January 23, 1995
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC  20008-4530

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington Field Office
1900 Half Street, SW
Washington, DC  20324-1600

Dear Sir:

The following materials are forwarded for your information:

Letter dated January 13, 1995 to my current treating psychiatrist Dr. Georgopoulos, concerning my mental state and psychiatric treatment history at GW.  On January 12, 1995 I asked my psychiatrist, Dr. Georgopoulos, whether he thought I was currently employable.  He stated that he thought I might be able to perform certain tasks.  I then asked whether Dr. Georgopoulos would telephone my former employer to advise the employer that I was now employable and inquire whether the employer might reinstate my employment.  Dr. Georgopoulos then asked me to whom he should speak.  I responded: Dennis Race.”  Dr. Georgopoulos said he would review with his supervisor at the GW psychiatry department the matter of contacting Dennis Race at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld to inquire about reinstating my employment.

On January 19, 1995 I delivered to Dr. Georgopoulos a copy of the enclosed letter (dated January 13, 1995) that details my current mental state.  At my consultation on January 20, 1995 Dr. Georgopoulos advised me that he had reviewed with his supervisor the possibility of contacting my former employer and that both Dr. Georgopoulos and his supervisor determined, in part based on the enclosed letter dated January 13, 1995, that my current paranoid mental state made it inappropriate to contact my former employer at this time.  Dr. Georgopoulos explained that although my job performance was outstanding at Akin Gump, my perceptions remained dominated by paranoid thinking and that it was my paranoid thinking that was at the root of my interpersonal difficulties at Akin Gump.  Dr. Georgopoulos stated that statements by coworkers at Akin Gump that they were afraid of me were a rational reaction by coworkers to my paranoid and suspicious manner.  Apparently, it is the position of Dr. Georgopoulos and his supervisor that I was not a victim of harassment at Akin Gump or that Akin Gump was a hostile work environment; rather my belief that I was a victim of harassment is evidence of my paranoid suspiciousness, which paranoid suspiciousness made it difficult for others to work with me.

Also enclosed for your information is a copy of all Performance Evaluations prepared during my employment at Akin Gump together with a tape recording of a telephone conversation that I had with a coworker, Mrs. Patricia McNeil, on July 1, 1993.  Presumably, Dr. Georgopoulos would concur that these materials fully document the natural history of a severe paranoid mental disorder that has the tendency of arousing fear in others, and that causes me to believe, wrongly, that I was a victim of harassment at Akin Gump.

In view of the determination by the Government of the District of Columbia that as of October 29, 1991 I suffered from severe paranoid disturbance and that, according to my former direct supervisor at akin Gump, Christine Robertson, I may be armed and homicidal, this matter is quite serious.


Gary Freedman


Gary Freedman said...

On the evening of July 1, 1993 I spoke by telephone with a former Akin Gump coworker, Patricia McNeil. Summarized below are selected, material comments made by Pat McNeil. I supplied a copy of the tape recording of the phone call to the DC Corporation Counsel, the U.S. Secret Service, and the D.C. Police (Second District, Officer J.E. Williams, Badge 1226).

1. I thought you were a very professional person, a quiet person, who stayed to himself. I respected that. Some people are just not people-oriented.

2. I never thought you were a violent person.

3. [Noting that I posted therapists' appointment cards at my desk:] I heard people say, "He must be crazy, he's always going to a psychiatrist."

4. [Quoting comments by another coworker, Carletta Diggins, concerning my termination:] Carletta said, "I wonder what they did to Gary? Gary was such a nice person. He was really a quiet person. He didn't bother anyone." I told Carletta, "as good of a person as Gary is -- his work speaks for itself, it couldn't have been his work -- what did he do?" She said, "I don't know, Pat."

5. [States facetiously:] All of a sudden you became this crazy person. When you were hired you weren't crazy. When do you think you became crazy?

6. [Concerning Dennis Race's investigation of my allegation of harassment:] 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. [Note that Pat McNeil's conjecture suggests a violation by my supervisor, Chris Robertson, of D.C. Code sec. 1-2525(b), prohibiting the aiding or abetting of retaliation.]

7. All I know is that Chris said, "You all know that Gary is gone. And they're coming to change the locks, because we're afraid Gary may come back and he may try to kill me." I never pictured you to be a person who would do something like that.

8. Lutheria Harrison and Sherri Ann Patrick were promoted to paralegals. [Lutheria Harrison and Sherri Ann Patrick fit in the category of "Chris Robertson's favorites."]

Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights, Record at 41.

Gary Freedman said...

Fears that a target of workplace mobbing might become violent are a feature of that form of subtle job harassment.

Gary Freedman said...

See item no. 16 below:

1. By standard criteria of job performance, the target is at least average, probably above average.

2. Rumours and gossip circulate about the target’s misdeeds: “Did you hear what she did last week?”

3. The target is not invited to meetings or voted onto committees, is excluded or excludes self.

4. Collective focus on a critical incident that “shows what kind of man he really is.”

5. Shared conviction that the target needs some kind of formal punishment, “to be taught a lesson.”

6. Unusual timing of the decision to punish, e. g., apart from the annual performance review.

7. Emotion-laden, defamatory rhetoric about the target in oral and written communications.

8. Formal expressions of collective negative sentiment toward the target, e. g. a vote of censure, signatures on a petition, meeting to discuss what to do about the target.

9. High value on secrecy, confidentiality, and collegial solidarity among the mobbers.

10. Loss of diversity of argument, so that it becomes dangerous to “speak up for”or defend the target.

11. The adding up of the target’s real or imagined venial sins to make a mortal sin that cries for action.

12. The target is seen as personally abhorrent, with no redeeming qualities; stigmatizing, exclusionary labels are applied.

13. Disregard of established procedures, as mobbers take matters into their own hands.

14. Resistance to independent, outside review of sanctions imposed on the target.

15. Outraged response to any appeals for outside help the target may make.

16. Mobbers’ fear of violence from target, target’s fear of violence from mobbers, or both.