What Did Eric Holder Know and When Did He Know It? Letter to Dr. Wiener -- 1995

I forwarded the following letter to U.S. Attorney, Eric H. Holder, Jr.   As to my belief that I was employable as of May 1995, keep in mind that it was not until May 1996 that I learned of the official determination of the Government of the District of Columbia (Charles F.C. Ruff, Esq., Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia) that my coworkers' fears that I might become armed and extremely dangerous in early August 1989 were in fact genuine and credible and that those fears were material to Akin Gump's decision to fire me in late October 1991.  See Brief of Appellee District of Columbia, Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights, D.C. Superior Court no. MPA-0014.  Also, it was not until June 1996 that I was placed on a federal registry of potentially violent offenders.  These facts about my potential for violence might render me unemployable per The Americans With Disabilities Act's provision that an employer may refuse to employ a person who poses a direct threat to other employees.

May 22, 1995
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC  20008-4530

Jerry M. Wiener, M.D.
Chairman -- Dept. of Psychiatry
GW University Medical Center
2150 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC  20008

Dear Dr. Wiener:

As you know, my former employer, the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, terminated my employment on October 29, 1991; attorney managers of the firm later justified the termination with the D.C. Department of Human Rights 1/ on the grounds that I suffered from a severe (paranoid) mental disorder that rendered me potentially violent, an imminent threat to persons in my environment, and unemployable.

I believe that I am employable, at least within the provision provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act, and that my former employer might reinstate my employment if the firm can be persuaded that I do not pose a threat of harm to other employees.

Mr. Robert S. Strauss, founding partner of my former employer, the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, has, coincidentally, a significant professional affiliation with the George Washington University Medical Center.  Mr. Strauss serves on the Advisory Board of the Ronald Reagan Institute if Emergency Medicine.  It may be that Mr. Strauss, as a fiduciary of the Medical Center, might consent, as a professional courtesy, to a request by the Medical Center to review the matter of my job reinstatement.

I am currently receiving disability benefits from the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA).  The SSA’s disability determination was based, in part, on sworn statements by attorney managers of Akin Gump, partners of Mr. Strauss, that I suffer from a severe mental disorder that renders me unemployable and, presumably, on input from the George Washington University Medical Center.  The SSA has determined that I have been continuously unemployable since the date of my job termination by Akin Gump, on October 29, 1991.

I believe it is important to point out with respect to the issue of my employability that at the time of my initial assessment by GW, in September 1992, Napoleon Cuenco M.D., the resident who conducted the assessment, arranged a consultation for me with my previous treating psychiatrist, Stanley R. Palombo, M.D.  At the conclusion of my consultation with Dr. Palombo, on October 2, 1992, Dr. Palombo expressly stated to me his professional opinion that I was employable.  Dr. Palombo is, coincidentally, a clinical professor of psychiatry at GW.

Notwithstanding my belief that I am currently employable (and the professional opinion of Dr. Palombo that I was employable as of October 2, 1992), I respect the diagnostic determinations of the Medical Center regarding my current mental status, in consideration of which the Medical Center might decline to contact my former employer.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman
______________
1/  My unlawful termination Complaint filed with the D.C. Department of Human Rights (DHR) was dismissed by decision of the DHR, dated September 24, 1993.  The matter is currently on appeal before the D.C. Court of Appeals.  Oral argument was held on October 13,1994.  The Government of the District of Columbia declines to file a brief in the matter, and was therefore precluded from appearing at oral argument.