June 29, 2015
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20008
The Honroable Karl A. Racine
Attorney General of the District of Columbia
Government of the District of Columbia
One Judiciary Square
441 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
RE: Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961 (Sept. 1, 1998)
Dear Mr. Racine:
Enclosed are several additional documents, all part of the record on
appeal in the above-referenced matter, that highlight peculiarities in
my job termination by the law firm of Akin, Gump, Starauss, Hauer &
Feld: a job termination that formed the basis of a determination by the
U.S. Social Security Administration that I became disabled and eligible
for government benefits effective October 29, 1991, the date of
Please keep the following chronology in mind:
October 29, 1991: I was terminated by senior counsel Dennis M. Race,
Esq. at a meeting in Race's office attended by my direct supervisor
(Chris Robertson) and the personnel administrator (Laurel Digweed).
February 4, 1992: The D.C. Department of Human Rights issued an
unlawful termination complaint pursuant to the D.C. Human Rights Act
May 22, 1992: The employer (Akin Gump) filed with DHR its Response to Interrogatories and Document Request stating, “When terminated, [Claimant] was told that his actual work product was not a problem.”
1992: I filed two letters with DHR detailing the events of the job
termination without knowledge of the employer's Response.
December 23, 1992: I received from DHR (via USPS registered mail) at my residence a copy of the employer's Response.
The following documents show that the termination meeting on October
29, 1991 featured a considerable amount of game playing by an Akin Gump
senior attorney manager (Dennis M. Race, Esq.), game playing that is not
entirely consistent with a good faith termination.
from Gary Freedman to DHR dated September 25, 1992 in which I admitted
that Race told me that my personnel file contained written statements
detailing various infractions and instances of misconduct I had engaged
in during my tenure. Race deliberately lied about said statements.
Upon receipt of Akin Gump's Response on December 23, 1992 I learned that
my personnel file contained no such written statements [R. 132].
2. Akin Gump Response dated May 22, 1992 states: "During his tenure,
Claimant was not given a formal written reprimand. However,
Respondent's concern about his inability to interact with co-workiers
and volatile behavior were addressed by his immediate supervisor,
Chrstine Robertson (caucasian/female) during several conferences with
Claimant [R. 132]. In fact, my personnel record (Performance
Evaluations or other documents) contains no contemporaneous memorial of
any such conferences. The only memorial of such "conferences" is a
retaliatory memo dated October 25, 1991 [R. 369-70], written by my
supervisor (Robertson) the day after I complained about her. See Jeppsen v. Wunnicke, 611 F. Supp. 78, 82 (D.C. Alaska 1985) (a
harassment complaint will more likely than not yield diametrically
opposed statements from the complaining employee and the alleged
offending supervisor and coworkers). Note that said memo states that my
work performance was "exemplary" [R. 369].
3. Letter from
Gary Freedman to DHR dated September 17, 1992, a highly defensive
communication in which I defend the quality of my work performance and
am utterly silent as to any oral statements by Race at the termination
meeting about my mental stability or volatile behavior with coworkers
[R. 527-532]. It is a fundamental principle of human behavior that
people become defensive about things they have been accused of and
remain silent as to things they were never accused of. Clearly, said
letter is persuasive circumstantial evidence that I was told by Race
that the main reason for my termination was poor work performance: that
the employer was silent as to psychological or emotional reasons for the
termination and silent as to volatile behavior.
cc: U.S. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch