|
Civil Action No. _________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
SIBEL EDMONDS,
6631 West Wakefield Drive
Alexandria, VA 22307
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
10th Street and Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
and
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
9TH Street and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20535
and
JOHN ASHCROFT,
in his official capacity as Attorney General,
U.S. Department of Justice
10th Street and Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
and
ROBERT S. MUELLER, III,
in his official capacity as Director,
Federal Bureau of Investigation
9th Street and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20535
and
[page 2]
THOMAS FRIELDS,
in his official capacity as Supervisory Agent
in Charge, Washington Field Office,
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Fourth and F Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20535
and
GEORGE STUKENBROKER,
in his official capacity as Chief of Security,
Washington Field Office
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Fourth and F Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Defendants.
__________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND FOR DAMAGES
This is an action seeking declaratory relief and damages
against Defendants U.S. Department
of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation, pursuant to the Privacy
Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, et seq.,
for violations as a result of, inter alia, the wrongful disclosure of
confidential information about
Plaintiff that is contained in Privacy Act systems of records. This is
also an action under the
Administrative Procedures Act as well as the First and Fifth Amendments
of the United States
Constitution for declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin the above
named Defendants from
depriving Plaintiff of her Constitutional rights.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This action arises under the Privacy Act of 1974, as
amended, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(b),
©), (e)(6), (e)(7), (e)(9), (e)(10), the Administrative Procedures
Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-552 and 701-
706, and the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment of the United States
Constitution. This Court
[page 3]
has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the Privacy
Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(g)(1)(D) and (5), the
Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-552 and 701-706,
and pursuant to the United States
Code of Judicial Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
2. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C.
§ 552a(g)(5),
and pursuant to the United States Code of Judicial Procedure, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Sibel D. Edmonds was formerly employed by the
Defendants as a contract
linguist and she is a citizen of the United States.
4. Defendant U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") is an agency
of the United States
government and maintains and is responsible for Privacy Act systems of
records containing
information about Plaintiff, and Defendant DOJ took illegal action against
Plaintiff.
5. Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") is an agency
of the United States
government and a component of Defendant DOJ, and maintains and is responsible
for Privacy Act
systems of records containing information about Plaintiff, and Defendant
FBI took illegal action
against Plaintiff.
6. Defendant John Ashcroft is the Attorney General of the United States,
and he is sued
in his official capacity.
7. Defendant Robert S. Mueller, III, is the Director of the Federal Bureau
of
Investigation, and he is sued in his official capacity.
8. Defendant Thomas Frields is a Supervisory Agent in Charge at the Washington
Field
Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington, D.C., and
he is sued in his official
capacity.
[page 4]
9. Defendant George Stukenbroker, is the Chief of Security
at the Washington Field
Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington, D.C., and
he is sued in his official
capacity.
FACTS
10. In September, 2001, Plaintiff Sibel D. Edmonds was hired
by Defendants as a
contract linguist to perform translation services at the FBI Washington
Field Office ("WFO") after
September 11, 2001, and she was assigned to work on FBI counter-terrorism
and counter-
intelligence investigations.
11. FBI contract linguists perform document-to-document or audio-to-document
translation services, and translate into English from the target language
the speech and/or writings
of non-English speaking individuals and, on occasion, render translations
from English into the
target language. FBI contract monitors perform summary translations of
voice recordings.
12. Between September, 2001, and March, 2002, Plaintiff performed translation
services
as an FBI contract linguist in one foreign language in which she is fluent,
and Plaintiff performed
some services as a contract monitor in two other languages. Plaintiff's
primary duties for
Defendants were working as a contract linguist translating information
from the foreign language
in which she is fluent into English.
13. As a condition of employment all FBI contract linguists and FBI contract
monitors
are required to pass a polygraph examination and a 10-year scope background
investigation and
obtain a security clearance.
14. Plaintiff passed a polygraph examination and a full background investigation
and was
granted a security clearance by the FBI prior to commencing her employment
in September, 2001.
[page 5]
15. Between December, 2001, and March, 2002, Plaintiff reported
a number of
whistleblower allegations to FBI management officials concerning serious
breaches in the FBI
security program and a break-down in the quality of translations as a
result of willful misconduct
and gross incompetence.
16. Plaintiff's reports of misconduct included, but were not limited to,
the allegations
that: (a) another employee, a contract monitor, who was granted a security
clearance by the FBI,
had past and ongoing association with one or more targets of an ongoing
FBI investigation; (b) this
same other employee was translating information obtained from FBI wire-taps
concerning one or
more targets with whom she had past and ongoing improper contacts; ©)
the same other employee
was suspected of leaking information to one or more targets of an FBI
investigation to which she
was assigned to perform translation services; (d) the other employee improperly
instructed Plaintiff
and another employee not to listen and translate certain FBI wire-taps
because she knew the subjects
and was confident that there would be nothing important to translate concerning
those subjects or
their conversations; (e) Plaintiff's supervisor issued instructions that
assisted the other employee in
carrying out misconduct; (f) the other employee threatened the lives and
safety of Plaintiff and
Plaintiff's family members, who were citizens of, and resided in, a foreign
country, because Plaintiff
refused to go along with the other employee's scheme to obstruct justice
and because Plaintiff
reported her concerns about the other employee's wrongdoing to FBI management;
(g) both as a
result of misconduct by the other employee and Plaintiff's supervisor,
and as a result of gross
incompetence in the department, numerous translations were not properly
conducted, and/or
intentionally not conducted, which threatened intelligence and law enforcement
investigations
related to September 11th and other ongoing counter-terrorist, counter-intelligence
and law
[page 6]
enforcement investigations; (h) work order documents concerning
translations related to September
11th investigations were falsified and contained forgeries of Plaintiff's
name and/or initials; (I)
Plaintiff's supervisor issued an instruction forbidding Plaintiff from
raising her concerns to the FBI
Special Agent assigned to the case, or others, without the permission
of Plaintiff's supervisor; (j)
extremely sensitive and material information was deliberately withheld
from translations; and (k)
FBI management had failed to take corrective action in response to Plaintiff's
reports and serious
concerns, and retaliated against Plaintiff for reporting her concerns.
17. On or about February 7, 2002, Plaintiff wrote a detailed memorandum
to the Acting
Assistant Supervisory Agent in Charge ("ASAC"), documenting
concerns about security and
management problems in the language department and requesting that prompt
corrective action be
taken.
18. Plaintiff also informed the ASAC and other FBI management officials
that Plaintiff
was deeply concerned for her personal safety and the safety of her family
as a result of the conduct
of, threats made by another employee, and Plaintiff requested that the
FBI take immediate steps to
address these problems.
19. FBI management at the FBI's Washington Field Office failed to take
prompt
corrective action as requested by Plaintiff and instead Plaintiff was
subjected to reprisal and
retaliation as a direct result of raising her concerns.
20. By letter dated February 13, 2002, Plaintiff wrote to Dale L. Watson,
Executive
Assistant Director for Counterterrorism/Counterintelligence, FBI, notifying
him of Plaintiff's serious
security concerns which potentially put Plaintiff's personal safety and
the safety of her family at
risk. In her letter Plaintiff informed Mr. Watson that she had already
reported her concerns to the
[page 7]
management in her department but that no corrective action
had been taken and that Plaintiff's
management expressed a "let"s just sweep it under the rug"
attitude.
21. On February 27, 2002, Mr. Watson signed the certified mail Domestic
Return Receipt
that was attached to Plaintiff's letter dated February 13, 2002.
22. On or about March 7, 2002, Plaintiff personally met with James T.
Caruso, Deputy
Assistant Director for Counterterrorism/Counterintelligence, FBI, who
was Mr. Watson's direct
deputy, about Plaintiff's concerns. During the course of their meeting,
which lasted between one
and a half to two hours, Mr. Caruso listened to Plaintiff's reports of
misconduct and her detailed
concerns about serious security breaches and misconduct in the language
department. However, Mr.
Caruso did not take any notes during his meeting with Plaintiff and at
the conclusion of the meeting
he failed to commit to taking corrective action of any kind.
23. On or about March 7, 2002, Plaintiff filed complaints with the FBI
Office of
Professional Responsibility ("OPR") and the DOJ Office of Inspector
General ("OIG") in which
Plaintiff reported her allegations of serious security breaches and misconduct.
Plaintiff also alleged
in her complaints to FBI OPR and DOJ OIG that she was being subjected
to harassment and
retaliation for making reports of serious security breaches and misconduct.
24. On March 22, 2002, Plaintiff's employment with the FBI was terminated.
Plaintiff
was escorted from the building and informed by a FBI management official,
Defendant Thomas
Frields, and WFO security chief, Defendant George Stukenbroker, that Plaintiff
would never step
foot in the FBI again. Plaintiff requested those FBI officials in attendance
at the meeting on March
22nd to provide her with a written reason for her termination, but she
was told that nothing in
writing would be provided by the FBI. Plaintiff also specifically requested
to return to her work
[page 8]
station to retrieve her personal belongings, including a
personal calendar, notes and family
photographs, but her request was expressly denied and she was escorted
out of the building.
Defendants Frields and Stukenbroker physically escorted Plaintiff from
the WFO building on March
22, 2002.
25. By letter dated April 2, 2002, Defendants officially notified Plaintiff
that her contract
was "terminated completely for the Government's convenience."
26. By letter dated May 8, 2002, Plaintiff, through counsel, notified
Attorney General
John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III, that as a direct
result of the FBI's failure to
address or correct the serious misconduct and security breaches that were
reported by Plaintiff the
safety and security of Plaintiff and her family has been jeopardized and
that a foreign country has
targeted Plaintiff's sister to be interrogated "and taken/arrested
by force." Plaintiff's counsel's letter
of May 8, 2002 to the Attorney General and FBI Director also provided
them with a copy of the
arrest warrant served by the foreign country at the residence of Plaintiff's
sister in the foreign
country together with a copy of the English translation of the arrest
warrant.
27. Also by letter dated May 8, 2002, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Ranking
Member of
the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, notified FBI Director Mueller that
Plaintiff "has come
forward with a number of disturbing allegations about misconduct, incompetence,
potential security
violations and retaliatory threats." Senator Grassley also provided
Director Mueller with a copy of
the arrest warrant served at the residence of Plaintiff's sister in the
foreign country and asked
Director Mueller to review the letter from Plaintiff's counsel to the
DOJ OIG expressing concerns
about the arrest warrant. Senator Grassley also asked Director Mueller
to "emphasize to officials
[page 9]
in the Washington Field Office that retaliation against
current or former FBI employees is not
acceptable, especially when retaliation endangers a person's family member."
28. On June 8. 2002, the Associated Press ("AP") published an
article, which was widely
disseminated on its news wire, quoting "Government officials, who
spoke only on condition of
anonymity," about Plaintiff.
29. The June 8, 2002 AP article reported the Defendants were investigating
Plaintiff's
whistleblower "allegations of security lapses in the translator program
that has played an important
role interpreting interviews and intercepts of Osama bin Laden's network
since Sept. 11." Citing
only "Government officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity,"
the AP reported that "the
FBI has been unable to corroborate the whistle-blower's allegations."
30. In addition, again citing to unnamed government officials, the AP
reported on June
8, 2002 that Plaintiff, "a contract employee in the FBI linguist
program, was fired last spring for
performance issues. She subsequently was subjected to a security review
herself, the officials said."
31. The June 8, 2002 AP article also reported that "The FBI has focused
its investigation
on whether either the accused or the whistle-blower compromised national
security, officials said."
32. On June 18, 2002, the Washington Post published an article citing
to "Government
officials" who said "the FBI fired" Plaintiff "because
her 'disruptiveness' hurt her on-the-job
'performance.'" In addition, the Washington Post reported in its
June 18th article that "FBI officials"
said that Plaintiff "had been found to have breached security."
COUNT I
(Violations of the Privacy Act by Defendants DOJ and
FBI)
[page 10]
33. Plaintiff hereby restates and re-alleges paragraphs
1 through 32, above, and further
states and alleges as follows:
34. Information about Plaintiff's security clearance, her employment as
a contract linguist
and any and all investigations of Plaintiff, including security reviews,
is maintained by Defendants
in a "system of records," as that term is defined by the Privacy
Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(5).
35. Defendants' systems of records contain confidential information about
Plaintiff's FBI
employment and her security clearance and any investigations of Plaintiff
conducted by Defendants
and also contain personal and confidential information about Plaintiff,
including, but not limited to,
her education, financial transactions, medical history, and employment
history and also contain her
name, social security number and other personal identifiers and/or identifying
information.
36. Confidential information pertaining to Plaintiff's FBI employment,
the termination
of her employment and security review is a "record," as that
term is defined by the Privacy Act, 5
U.S.C. § 552a(a)(4).
37. Defendants DOJ and FBI, through their officers, employees, agents,
and
representatives, commenced intentionally and/or willfully disclosing and
releasing to unauthorized
persons the contents of records maintained by Defendants in one or more
systems of records
pertaining to Plaintiff in violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended,
5 U.S.C. § 552a. The
contents of records intentionally, willfully, and unlawfully disclosed
by Defendants to unauthorized
persons without Plaintiff's consent included, but were not limited to,
the information that Plaintiff
was subject to a security review, Plaintiff's job performance and other
information contained in the
Defendants' personnel, security and investigative files about Plaintiff.
[page 11]
38. Defendants' intentional and willful disclosures to unauthorized
third persons of
information about Plaintiff contained in Privacy Act systems of records
has occurred on several
occasions since March of 2002 through the present, and Defendants' unauthorized
disclosure of such
information is continuing and ongoing.
39. Defendants, through their officers, employees, agents, and representatives,
commenced intentionally and/or willfully disclosing and releasing to unauthorized
persons the
contents of records maintained by Defendants in a system of records, pertaining
to Plaintiff without
any official need or any official purpose.
40. Defendants, through their officers, employees, agents, and representatives,
commenced intentionally and/or willfully disclosing and releasing to unauthorized
persons the
contents of records maintained by Defendants in one or more systems of
records pertaining to
Plaintiff without advance consent and without providing Plaintiff any
prior notice or an opportunity
to protest the disclosure, so that Plaintiff had no opportunity to protect
certain, if not all, of the
information contained within the records from release to third parties.
41. Defendants, through their officers, employees, agents, and representatives,
commenced intentionally and/or willfully disclosing and releasing to unauthorized
persons the
contents of records maintained by Defendants in one or more systems of
records pertaining to
Plaintiff without any making any reasonable efforts to assure that the
information contained within
the records were "accurate, complete, timely, and relevant for agency
purposes," in violation of 5
U.S.C. § 552a(e)(6).
42. Defendants, through their officers, employees, agents, and representatives,
have
violated 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(9) by intentionally and willfully failing
to establish rules of conduct for
[page 12]
persons involved in the design, development, operation or
maintenance of any system of records,
or in maintaining any record, and Defendants have failed to instruct each
person with respect to such
rules and the penalties for non-compliance.
43. Defendants, through their officers, employees, agents, and representatives,
have
violated 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(10) by intentionally and willfully failing
to establish appropriate
administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to insure the security
and confidentiality of
records and to protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to their
security or integrity which
could result in substantial harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, or unfairness
to any individual,
including Plaintiff, on whom information is maintained.
44. Defendants have failed to properly make and keep an accounting for
each
unauthorized intentional and willful disclosure to third parties of information
about Plaintiff from
one or more systems of records as required by 5 U.S.C. §552a©)(1).
45. As a direct result of the above-referenced violations of the Privacy
Act of 1974 by
Defendants disclosures of the contents of records maintained by Defendants
in one or more systems
of records pertaining to Plaintiff have occurred on numerous occasions
since March 22, 2002, and
sensitive personal information about Plaintiff has been release to third
parties and reprinted and
reported throughout the world by several media sources and news organizations.
46. Plaintiff did nothing to create or contribute to the risk of the disclosure
and release
of the contents of records maintained by Defendants in one or more systems
of records pertaining
to Plaintiff.
[page 13]
47. The Defendants' intentional and willful disclosure and
release of the contents of
records maintained by Defendants in one or more systems of records pertaining
to Plaintiff was not
consistent with the purpose for which the information was originally collected.
48. As a direct and proximate result of the above-referenced intentional
and willful
violations of the Privacy Act of 1974 by Defendants, including but not
limited to the unauthorized
disclosures of information about the FBI's review of Plaintiff's security
clearance and termination
of Plaintiff's employment, the Plaintiff has suffered an "adverse
effect," as defined in 5 U.S.C. §
552a(g)(1)(D), and has suffered damages, including but not limited to,
actual pecuniary damages
and actual non-pecuniary damages in the form of direct and indirect injury
to Plaintiff's reputation,
extreme public embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, ridicule, physical
upset, emotional upset,
mental anguish, physical pain and suffering, trauma, past, present and
future loss of income, and
damage to career and her professional reputation, and Plaintiff has been
subjected to substantial
harm, embarrassment, physical danger, inconvenience, and unfairness as
a result of the Privacy Act
violations committed by Defendants.
49. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' intentional and willful
violations of
the Privacy Act, the Plaintiff has been broadly precluded from pursuing
her chosen career as a
linguist, and Defendants' actions have seriously affected and destroyed
Plaintiff's ability to follow
her chosen career, or a future career in government service in the field
of law enforcement or
national security, and substantially reduced the value of plaintiff's
human capital in violation of her
right to follow a chosen trade or profession without governmental interference.
COUNT II
(Violations of the APA and the First Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution)
[page 14]
50. Plaintiff hereby restates and re-alleges paragraphs
1 through 49, above, and further
states and alleges as follows:
51. Plaintiff has engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment
to the U.S.
Constitution by reporting serious problems within the FBI translator program
which has a direct and
significant bearing on matters of widespread public concern.
52. As a direct and proximate result of engaging in activity protected
by the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Defendants have retaliated against
Plaintiff by, inter alia,
terminating Plaintiff from her position with the FBI.
53. Defendants' termination of Plaintiff's employment as well as the other
adverse action
taken by Defendants against Plaintiff is final agency action that is also
subject to review pursuant
to the Administrative Procedures Act. The actions taken by Defendants
against Plaintiff are
arbitrary, capricious and in violation of law and the First Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution.
54. Prior to Plaintiff's reports of misconduct and gross incompetence
in the FBI language
program she had received letters of commendation for her work as a contract
linguist for her work
on translations related to September 11th detainee issues and for work
related to ongoing FBI
counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations. Only after Defendants
learned that Plaintiff
had engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment did Defendants
criticize Plaintiff's work
performance and otherwise retaliate against Plaintiff for engaging in
speech on matters of public
concern.
55. Defendants' actions, regulations, memoranda, directives, and conduct
have adversely
affected Plaintiff and threaten other similarly situated current employees
in their exercise of duly
protected rights under the laws of the United States and the First Amendment
to the U.S.
[page 15]
Constitution with the effect and/or intent to prevent Plaintiff,
and others similarly situated, from
raising matters of public concern or reporting information that an employee
of the defendants would
reasonably believe is illegal or a matter of public concern.
56. Plaintiff has risked and experienced loss of job and other adverse
action for engaging
in activities protected by the laws of the United States and the First
Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants' actions, regulations,
memoranda, directives, and
conduct have interfered with the ability of Plaintiff and others similarly
situated to speak on topics
of public concern and deprive them of their constitutional rights of freedom
of speech and due
process.
57. Defendants' actions, regulations, memoranda, directives and conduct
have
constrained Plaintiff and others similarly situated in the exercise of
duly protected rights under the
laws of the United States and of freedom of speech guaranteed by the First
Amendment, continue
to deprive and severely chill others similarly situated from engaging
in said protected rights, and
deny the American people access to information concerning the operation
of their government.
58. Defendants' reasons for taking action against Plaintiff are pretextual
and Plaintiff has
been subjected to disparate treatment when her work performance and record
is compared with other
employees. For example, other persons employed by Defendants in the FBI
language department,
who did not speak on matters of public concern, had work performance problems,
violated
Defendants' rules, policies or regulations, or presented security risks,
but were not disciplined or
treated adversely as was Plaintiff.
59. Defendants should also be ordered to reinstate Plaintiff to her position
as a contract
linguist and Defendants should be enjoined from taking any future retaliatory
action, disciplinary
[page 16]
action or other action against Plaintiff, and other similarly
situated persons, because the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees have been deprived of their rights
under the U.S. Constitution.
60. Defendants should be enjoined from enforcing or issuing regulations,
memoranda,
directives or taking any action that has constrained, or will constrain,
Plaintiff and others similarly
situated in the exercise of duly protected rights under the laws of the
United States and of freedom
of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.
61. Defendants should be enjoined from taking any reprisal or retaliatory
action against
Plaintiff or her family, and Defendants should be ordered to fully protect
Plaintiff and her family
from further harm because Plaintiff has engaged in rights protected by
the laws of the United States
and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
COUNT III
(Violations of the APA and the Fifth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution)
62. Plaintiff hereby restates and re-alleges paragraphs
1 through 61, above, and further
states and alleges as follows:
63. Defendants have violated Plaintiff's right to procedural due process
and her due
process liberty interest pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
as a result of
Defendants' termination of Plaintiff's employment and Defendants' interference
with Plaintiff's
opportunity to obtain future employment in her chosen career.
64. Defendants have intentionally and willfully released derogatory and
confidential
information about Plaintiff and made defamatory statements about Plaintiff
in addition to
discharging her from her duties in violation of Plaintiff's right to due
process.
[page 17]
65. Defendants' termination of Plaintiff's employment as
well as the other adverse action
taken by Defendants against Plaintiff is final agency action that is also
subject to review pursuant
to the Administrative Procedures Act. The actions taken by Defendants
against Plaintiff are
arbitrary, capricious and in violation of law and the Fifth Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution.
66. Defendants' adverse action has also imposed a stigma and disability
on Plaintiff that
forecloses her freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities.
67. In addition to plaintiff being formally and automatically excluded
from all FBI work
as a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff has also been broadly precluded
from pursuing her
chosen career as a linguist and from pursuing a government career in law
enforcement and/or
national security. Defendants' actions have seriously affected and destroyed
plaintiff's ability to
follow her chosen career path and substantially reduced the value of plaintiff's
human capital in
violation of her constitutional right to follow a chosen trade or profession
without governmental
interference.
68. When Plaintiff's employment was terminated on March 22, 2002, Defendant
Frields,
an FBI management official at the Washington Field Office, informed Plaintiff
that she would never
be allowed to set foot on FBI premises again and he stated to Plaintiff
that the next time he would
meet her would be in jail. Defendants Frields and Stukenbroker physically
escorted Plaintiff from
the WFO on March 22, 2002.
69. Defendants' adverse actions against Plaintiff have resulted in automatically
disqualifying Plaintiff from all future FBI work, and have irreparably
damaged Plaintiff's ability to
obtain government employment, thus resulting in an effected change in
Plaintiff's status sufficient
to implicate a liberty interest, with attendant needs for due process
protection. This binding effect
[page 18]
is automatic and formal, and not merely placing plaintiff
at a competitive disadvantage relative to
other applicants to other government positions.
70. Defendants' actions have also imposed a broad effect of largely precluding
Plaintiff
from pursuing her chosen career. In addition to discharging Plaintiff
from employment as a contract
linguist, barring her from further work at the FBI and escorting her from
the premises by security
under threat of future criminal prosecution, Defendants have also irreparably
damaged Plaintiff's
reputation and career path through the leaking of derogatory and negative
information about her to
the news media, and, as a result of all of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff's
ability to obtain
employment either as a government translator, or pursuing a future career
in law enforcement and/or
national security, has been severely affected, if not destroyed. As a
direct and proximate result of
Defendants' actions any future applications for such employment by Plaintiff
will be met with an
inhospitable reception and will be denied.
71. Defendants have also violated their own rules, policies and procedures
in taking
adverse action against Plaintiff which deprived Plaintiff of her Fifth
Amendment right to due
process.
72. Defendants' actions, regulations, memoranda, directives, and conduct
have adversely
affected Plaintiff, deprived Plaintiff of her personal property without
due process of law (including
but not limited to Defendants' wrongful withholding of Plaintiff's personal
family photographs,
personal calendars and personal notes and papers) and violate Plaintiff's
right to due process under
the laws of the United States and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
73. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' intentional and willful
conduct, the
Plaintiff has been broadly precluded from pursuing her chosen career as
a linguist, or from pursuing
[page 19]
a future career in government service in the field of law
enforcement or national security, and
Defendants' actions have seriously affected and destroyed Plaintiff's
ability to follow her chosen
career and substantially reduced the value of plaintiff's human capital
in violation of her right to
follow a chosen trade or profession without governmental interference.
74. Defendants should also be ordered to reinstate Plaintiff to her position
as a contract
linguist and Defendants should be enjoined from taking any future action
against Plaintiff because
the Plaintiff has been deprived of their rights under the U.S. Constitution.
75. Defendants should be enjoined from taking any action against Plaintiff
or her family,
and Defendants should be ordered to fully protect Plaintiff and her family
from further harm.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief from this Court, as
follows:
(a) Order preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, as appropriate;
(b) Order declaratory relief, as appropriate;
(c) Award Plaintiff damages, subject to proof and in an amount to be determined
at trial,
pursuant to the Privacy Act, including but not limited to actual, compensatory
damages for,
inter alia, harm to reputation, physical pain and physical sickness, and
emotional distress
and humiliation, as well as for damages to Plaintiff's career;
(d) Award Plaintiff damages in an amount not less than $1,000 for each
and every violation of
the Privacy Act;
(e) Award Plaintiff her costs and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to
the Privacy Act, the Equal
Access to Justice Act, or as appropriate; and
(f) Grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.
[page 20]
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
David K. Colapinto
D.C. Bar No. 416390
__________________________
Stephen M. Kohn
D.C. Bar No. 411513
KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C.
3233 P Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: (202) 342-6980
Fax: (202) 342-6984
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Dated: July 22, 2002
|
