Viewing page 82 of 119

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

- 71 -

and the Institution required Bell to indemnify and hold harmless the Smithsonian and the United States in all matters arising under the contract. The U.S. Attorney will monitor developments as this case proceeds to trial; however, the Institution will not be an active participant in the trial, nor will there be any liability for the United States or the Smithsonian should the case be settled or judgment be rendered against Bell Security. This suit is therefore being removed from the active case list.

The Moye v. Adams discrimination suit, brought in June 1993 by a member of the National Zoological Park (NZP) police force who alleged that he was discriminated against on the basis of sex when, for a period of time, the only female NZP officer on board was assigned solely to day shifts while the plaintiff and other male NZP police officers rotated shifts, was settled in December 1994 for $600. The $600 is to be paid from the Judgment Fund.

In September 1994 a Stipulation of Dismissal was voluntarily submitted by plaintiff's counsel in the Redmond v. Smithsonian Institution case, filed July 22, 1994, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia by a former employee of the Office of Planning, Management and Budget, alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of her purported disability when her position was abolished in April 1994 and seeking reinstatement with back and front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. The Smithsonian has requested that the U.S. Attorney file a notice of removal with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and a Motion to Dismiss for failure of the plaintiff to exhaust her administrative remedies. The Stipulation of Dismissal was agreed to by the U.S. Attorney on behalf of the Smithsonian Institution.

The one new case, Eastman Kodak v. United States, is brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Smithsonian was still in the process of investigating the claim when the complaint was filed. The case has been referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for handling. An Answer is due by February 15, 1995.

There have been no major developments in remaining cases.

MITCHELL AND OTHER ADVANCEMENT/INDEMNIFICATION CASES

The Mitchell Case

Dr. Richard M. Mitchell's appeal from a felony conviction for smuggling was affirmed by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in November 1994, with one judge dissenting. His conviction was for failing to file all documentation required either by Federal agriculture, customs, or wildlife regulations, in connection with importing parts from non-endangered animals. The Court upheld the jury's general verdict that he violated at least one agency's regulation. The majority ruled that although violations of the agricultural and wildlife administrative regulations in question normally are punishable as misdemeanors, those administrative regulatory provisions can be incorporated into the anti-smuggling statue (18 U.S.C. § 545), thereby rendering the violation of those regulations a felony. Dr. Mitchell has filed a petition for rehearing and request for rehearing en band. It is not anticipated that