

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Dylan Blaylock, Communications Director
202.457.0034, ext. 137,
dylanb@whistleblower.org
A decision by a Superior Court
Judge last week, involving the case of a whistleblower from the Washington, D.C.
Fire & Emergency Medical Services (FEMS) department, may help open the door
for a slew of whistleblower cases from current/former District employees to be
brought against the city.
Theresa Cusick served as FEMS General Counsel until
2007, when she informed an Assistant U.S. Attorney that a FEMS officer had a
conflict of interest in working with the Office of the U.S. Attorney (USA).
Cusick also blew the whistle to the D.C. Office of Inspector General (DC-OIG)
that Assistant D.C. Fire Chief Brain Lee illegally prohibited her from
communicating with either DC-OIG or USA regarding the officer under
investigation. (A full
background of Cusick's case appears below)
Cusick brought suit in September 2008 under the
District's Whistleblower Protection Act (DCWPA), seeking reinstatement to
her former position and damages. Recently, attorneys for the District sought
dismissal of the case claiming, in part, that Cusick violated D.C. Code SS12-309
by failing to timely notify the District of her whistleblower claim within six
months after the circumstances giving rise to her lawsuit.
However, recent amendments to the DCWPA,
effective March 2010, abolished this notice requirement after city lawmakers
recognized that the short time period for notification was a significant
impediment to whistleblowers. Last week, Senior Superior Court Judge Leonard
Braman held that the repeal of the notice requirement in the WPA should be applied retroactively.
"This is a great victory for D.C. employees who
have suffered retaliation for whistleblowing," stated GAP Senior Counsel
Richard Condit, a lawyer for Cusick. "This means that District employees
and their lawyers - who may have previously believed that the notice
requirement barred a claim under the DCWPA - should absolutely reconsider
whether the claim can be brought."
The Court summarized its analysis of the issue as
follows:
...the
Court is of the view that the statutory notice provision, section 12-309, was
repealed, that not only was it -- was the amendment a repealer of the previous
provision that made the statutory notice provision applicable to the
Whistleblower's Act but that the law of the District as declared in the
Montgomery case and cases cited in the Montgomery case [590 A.2d at 162], based
upon the legislative history of the amendment to the Whistleblower's Act as
stated in the committee report, based upon the Uniform Law Commissioner's Model
Statutory Construction Act, all of these authorities constrain the Court to apply the amendment
notwithstanding that this case was pending before the amendment. [emphasis added]
The transcript of the hearing, Cusick v. District of Columbia, Civil No.
08-6915 (MPA) can be
viewed here (the passage above appears on page 35).
Under Chief Dennis Rubin, FEMS has exhibited a pattern
of retaliation against fire department personnel. Retaliatory actions under the
Rubin administration include ordering a fire department captain to undergo a
psychological evaluation after she raised concerns regarding the management
practices of certain Fire and EMS high-ranking officials, the involuntary
reassignment of fire investigators who blew the whistle on Fire/EMS failures in
investigating the 2007 fire in Eastern Market, and the termination of a
firefighter following his testimony at a D.C. City Council hearing.
Background on Theresa Cusick
Theresa Cusick is a former senior attorney of the
District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General (OAG) who served as the
General Counsel of FEMS from June 1998 to June 2007. While serving as General
Counsel, Cusick blew the whistle to an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) that a
FEMS officer in the Fire Prevention Division was being investigated by the
DC-OIG for his alleged involved in a cheating scandal in the FEMS Training
Academy. She advised the
AUSA that this EMS officer should not be
involved in an unrelated criminal investigation involving a fire inspector in
the Fire Prevention Division. Her concern was that FEMS, or the Office of the
U.S. Attorney for the District of
Columbia, should not rely on the officer under
investigation until he was cleared of any involvement in the scandal.
Cusick also blew the whistle to the DC-OIG, the D.C.
OAG and to D.C. Fire Chief Dennis Rubin that she was given an illegal order by
Assistant Fire Chief Brain Lee, prohibiting her from communicating with DC-OIG
and the AUSA regarding the officer under investigation. Subsequent to her
whistleblowing and upon request by Chief Rubin, the OAG removed Ms. Cusick from
her position as FEMS General Counsel. The controversy surrounding Chief
Rubin's request for Cusick's removal is revealed, in part, in sworn
deposition testimony given by Chief Rubin. A GAP
produced video of a portion of this deposition was released
earlier this year.
After her removal from FEMS, Cusick was given a
temporary position within the OAG with the promise from the Chief Deputy
Attorney General, Eugene Adams, that he would assist her in securing permanent
employment within the OAG. However, Cusick was never offered a permanent
position, ultimately ending her career as a senior attorney with OAG.
The Government Accountability Project (GAP) is a 30-year-old nonprofit public interest group that promotes government and corporate accountability by advancing occupational free speech, defending whistleblowers, and empowering citizen activists. We pursue this mission through our Nuclear Safety, International Reform, Corporate Accountability, Food & Drug Safety, and Federal Employee/National Security programs. GAP is the nation's leading whistleblower protection organization.
"Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food," one lawyer said.
As the Trump administration continued its illegal freeze on food assistance, the US Department of Agriculture sent a warning to grocery stores not to provide discounts to the more than 42 million Americans affected.
Several grocery chains and food delivery apps have announced in recent days that they would provide substantial discounts to those whose Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits have been delayed. More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the program, and 39% of them are children.
But on Sunday, Catherine Rampell, a reporter at the Washington Post published an email from the USDA that was sent to grocery stores around the country, telling them they were prohibited from offering special discounts to those at greater risk of food insecurity due to the cuts.
"You must offer eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions to SNAP-EBT customers as other customers, except that sales tax cannot be charged on SNAP purchases," the email said. "You cannot treat SNAP-EBT customers differently from any other customer. Offering discounts or services only to SNAP-eligible customers is a SNAP violation unless you have a SNAP equal treatment waiver."
The email referred to SNAP's "Equal Treatment Rule," which prohibits stores from discriminating against SNAP recipients by charging them higher prices or treating them more favorably than other customers by offering them specialized sales or incentives.
Rampell said she was "aware of at least two stores that had offered struggling customers a discount, then withdrew it after receiving this email."
She added that it was "understandable why grocery stores might be scared off" because "a store caught violating the prohibition could be denied the ability to accept SNAP benefits in the future. In low-income areas where the SNAP shutdown will have the biggest impact, getting thrown off SNAP could mean a store is no longer financially viable."
While the rule prohibits special treatment in either direction, legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold argues that it was a "perverted interpretation of a rule that stops grocers from price gouging SNAP recipients... charging them more when they use food stamps."
The government also notably allows retailers to request waivers for programs that incentivize SNAP recipients to purchase healthy food.
Others pointed out that SNAP is currently not paying out to Americans because President Donald Trump is defying multiple federal court rulings issued Friday, requiring him to tap a $6 billion contingency fund to ensure benefit payments go out. Both courts, in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have said his administration's refusal to pay out benefits is against the law.
One labor movement lawyer summed up the administration's position on social media: "Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food."
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy.
After failing to use the government's might to bully Jimmy Kimmel off the air earlier this fall, President Donald Trump is once again threatening to bring the force of law down on comedians for the egregious crime of making fun of him.
This time, his target was NBC late-night host Seth Meyers, whom the president said, in a Truth Social post Saturday, "may be the least talented person to 'perform' live in the history of television."
On Thursday, the comedian hosted a segment mocking Trump's bizarre distaste for the electromagnetic catapults aboard Navy ships, which the president said he may sign an executive order to replace with older (and less efficient) steam-powered ones.
Trump did not take kindly to Meyers' barbs: "On and on he went, a truly deranged lunatic. Why does NBC waste its time and money on a guy like this??? - NO TALENT, NO RATINGS, 100% ANTI TRUMP, WHICH IS PROBABLY ILLEGAL!!!"
It is, of course, not "illegal" for a late-night comedian, or any other news reporter or commentator, for that matter, to be "anti-Trump." But it's not the first time the president has made such a suggestion. Amid the backlash against Kimmel's firing in September, Trump asserted that networks that give him "bad publicity or press" should have their licenses taken away.
"I read someplace that the networks were 97% against me... I mean, they’re getting a license, I would think maybe their license should be taken away,” Trump said. "All they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”
His FCC director, Brendan Carr, used a similar logic to justify his pressure campaign to get Kimmel booted by ABC, which he said could be punished for airing what he determined was "distorted” content.
Before Kimmel, Carr suggested in April that Comcast may be violating its broadcast licenses after MSNBC declined to air a White House press briefing in which the administration defended its wrongful deportation of Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on social media following Trump's tirade against Meyers. "Why? Because Trump believes he—not the people—decides the law. This is why we are in the middle of, not on the verge of, a totalitarian takeover."
"An ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien," said the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Immigration agents are using facial recognition software as "definitive" evidence to determine immigration status and is collecting data from US citizens without their consent. In some cases, agents may detain US citizens, including ones who can provide their birth certificates, if the app says they are in the country illegally.
These are a few of the findings from a series of articles published this past week by 404 Media, which has obtained documents and video evidence showing that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents are using a smartphone app in the field during immigration stops, scanning the faces of people on the street to verify their citizenship.
The report found that agents frequently conduct stops that "seem to have little justification beyond the color of someone’s skin... then look up more information on that person, including their identity and potentially their immigration status."
While it is not clear what application the agencies are using, 404 previously reported that ICE is using an app called Mobile Fortify that allows ICE to simply point a camera at a person on the street. The photos are then compared with a bank of more than 200 million images and dozens of government databases to determine info about the person, including their name, date of birth, nationality, and information about their immigration status.
On Friday, 404 published an internal document from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) which stated that "ICE does not provide the opportunity for individuals to decline or consent to the collection and use of biometric data/photograph collection." The document also states that the image of any face that agents scan, including those of US citizens, will be stored for 15 years.
The outlet identified several videos that have been posted to social media of immigration officials using the technology.
In one, taken in Chicago, armed agents in sunglasses and face coverings are shown accosting a pair of Hispanic teenagers on bicycles, asking where they are from. The 16-year-old boy who filmed the encounter said he is "from here"—an American citizen—but that he only has a school ID on him. The officer tells the boy he'll be allowed to leave if he'll "do a facial." The other officer then snaps a photo of him with a phone camera and asks his name.
In another video, also in Chicago, agents are shown surrounding a driver, who declines to show his ID. Without asking, one officer points his phone at the man. "I’m an American citizen, so leave me alone,” the driver says. "Alright, we just got to verify that,” the officer responds.
Even if the people approached in these videos had produced identification proving their citizenship, there's no guarantee that agents would have accepted it, especially if the app gave them information to the contrary.
On Wednesday, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), told 404 that ICE agents will even trust the app's results over a person's government documents.
“ICE officials have told us that an apparent biometric match by Mobile Fortify is a ‘definitive’ determination of a person’s status and that an ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien,” he said.
This is despite the fact that, as Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told 404, “face recognition technology is notoriously unreliable, frequently generating false matches and resulting in a number of known wrongful arrests across the country."
Thompson said: "ICE using a mobile biometrics app in ways its developers at CBP never intended or tested is a frightening, repugnant, and unconstitutional attack on Americans’ rights and freedoms.”
According to an investigation published in October by ProPublica, more than 170 US citizens have been detained by immigration agents, often in squalid conditions, since President Donald Trump returned to office in January. In many of these cases, these individuals have been detained because agents wrongly claimed the documents proving their citizenship are false.
During a press conference this week, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem denied this reality, stating that "no American citizens have been arrested or detained" as part of Trump's "mass deportation" crusade.
"We focus on those who are here illegally," she said.
But as DHS's internal document explains, facial recognition software is necessary in the first place because "ICE agents do not know an individual's citizenship at the time of the initial encounter."
David Bier, the director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, explains that the use of such technology suggests that ICE's operations are not "highly targeted raids," as it likes to portray, but instead "random fishing expeditions."