Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights -- Notice of Civil Rights Violation

The right to seek employment is a fundamental liberty interest guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States; the denial of, or interference with, that right constitutes a federal civil rights violation. See Doe v. Bredesen, U.S. Dist. Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, at Nashville: "Right to Seek Employment . . . While no Supreme Court decision has expressly found the right to work, or at least the right to pursue employment, to be a fundamental right, it can hardly be concluded otherwise."

 December 12, 1997
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC  20008-4530

Charles L. Reischel, Esq.
Deputy Corporation Counsel
One Judiciary Square
441 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, DC  20001
(202) 727-6252

RE:  Freedman v. D.C. Department Human Rights
   D.C. Court of Appeals no. 96-CV-961

Dear Mr. Reischel:

I believe that the enclosed sample letter indicates that a possible decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals in favor of the District may be appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

The letter shows that the affirmation by the D.C. Department of Human Rights that Akin Gump formed genuine concerns about my mental health and stability (based on a consultation with a psychiatrist)--an affirmation made without basis of an evidentiary hearing--arguably imposes a constitutionally impermissible burden on my ability to obtain employment.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

cc:  Dennis M. Race, Esq.
Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D.
John C. Keeney, Jr., U.S. Dept. Justice
___________________________________

[DATE]
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC  20008-4530

John Smith
XYZ Incorporated
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. Smith:

I am interested in employment with your company, and transmit herewith a resume that details my education and experience.

I believe I have a duty, arising under tort principles [citation], to advise you that the District of Columbia Department of Human Rights has found that my former employer, the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, had valid business reasons to determine, in late October 1991, that I was not suitable for employment, based on the employer's concerns--deemed genuine by the District--about my mental health and stability, including the potential for violence.

Akin Gump's mental health determination was based on diagnostic psychiatric information provided to the employer by a psychiatrist who did not evaluate me personally.  The psychiatrist reportedly provided diagnostic psychiatric information to the employer based on the employer's recital of facts pertinent to my beliefs about my coworkers.

The District's determination that the employer formed genuine concerns about my mental health and my potential for violence was not based on an evidentiary hearing.

I believe I have a duty, arising under tort principles [citation], to advise you that that District of Columbia has determined that the psychiatrist who advised the employer (in violation of the APA's Principles of Ethics) that individuals such as myself may pose a risk of violence is named Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D.  Dr. Ticho may be contacted at (202) 244 2113.

I believe the employer, Akin Gump, has a duty, arsing under tort principles [see e.g, Merchants Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Fargo v. United States, (D.N.D. 1967) 272 F. Supp. 409], to apprise you of all facts pertinent to its consultations with mental health professionals (including a psychiatrist) upon which the employer determined that I was not suitable for employment by reason of mental instability and the potential for violence.  You may contact Dennis M. Race, Esq., the Akin Gump attorney who terminated my employment, at 202 887 4028.

I believe I have a duty, arising under tort principles [citation], to advise you that the District of Columbia Office of Corporation Counsel has expressly affirmed to the D.C. Court of Appeals that my coworkers at Akin Gump formed genuine concerns that I might have been armed and poised to carry out a homicidal assault on the employer's premises.  You may review this matter with Deputy Corporation Counsel Charles L. Reischel at 202 727 6252.

I sincerely hope that the affirmation by the Government of the District of Columbia that my former employer had genuine concerns about my mental health and stability (including the potential for violence) will not adversely affect any employment decision.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

1 comment:

Gary Freedman said...

This letter is dated days before oral argument before the D.C. Court of Appeals in Freedman v. DHR, December 16, 1997.