Viewing page 49 of 108
It looks like you're using a mobile device. We recommend using a physical keyboard for transcription entry.
- 33 - response from the Smithsonian to her discovery requests. On August 11, 1995, an opposition to the motion was filed on behalf of the Smithsonian by the Department of Justice. Plaintiff's claims arise from the May 1991 termination from her position as reorder buyer with the Smithsonian Museum Shops. The plaintiff was dismissed for using the Smithsonian's name and official documents to make an unauthorized personal purchase. On July 14, 1995, the New York Court of Appeals denied the petition for appeal of the March 21, 1995, decision by the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court in the Huntington Free Library case. As a result, the decision of the Appellate Division held that the purposes of the transfer of the library materials to the Huntington Free Library had not ceased and there was no basis to order the collection transferred to the Smithsonian. The Huntington Free Library has indicated that it will not engage in any further discussions about possible settlement unless the Smithsonian pays its entire legal fees, which amount to approximately $300,000. In the June 29, 1995, decision in DeVera, U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman found that the reasons given by the Smithsonian Institution for the nonselection of the plaintiff for promotion to one of three vacant GS-8/9 Executive Officer (Lieutenant) positions in the Office of Protection Services in November 1987 were legitimate business decisions and were not pretexts for discriminatory conduct, and that, while plaintiff had made a prima facie case, he had not carried his ultimate burden of proving discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence. Plaintiff had filed this suit on June 15, 1992, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that he was discriminated against on the basis of race, color, and national origin (Filipino) and in reprisal for filing a discrimination complaint, which discrimination, plaintiff alleged, resulted in the Smithsonian denying him a promotion and other promotional opportunities and improperly disciplining plaintiff in retaliation for his filing a discrimination charge. Plaintiff sought attorneys' fees, back pay, and compensatory damages. A status hearing was held on December 14, 1993, at which the trial that had originally been scheduled for February 7, 1994, was indefinitely postponed, pending the Supreme Court's decision in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, a case regarding the retroactivity of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The decision was issued on April 26, 1994, finding no retroactivity. DeVera was thereafter transferred and a status hearing was held on August 9, 1994. A Motion for Summary Judgment was filed by the U.S. Attorney on behalf of the Smithsonian on November 16, 1994, and a hearing was held on December 21, 1994, before Judge Friedman. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Friedman stated that he would enter summary judgment for the Smithsonian on two of plaintiff's three claims of discrimination. In a January 25, 1995, decision, Judge Friedman granted the Smithsonian's motion for summary judgment on the claims of retaliatory discipline and denial of promotional opportunities for the temporary position, but denied summary judgment on the plaintiff's claim of discriminatory failure to promote. Trial on the remaining nonselection for promotion issue commenced on April 3, 1995, and lasted three days. No appeal of the June 29, 1995, decision has been filed to date. In the Niko case, filed June 26, 1995, the plaintiff's twelve-count complaint alleges that it is entitled to approximately $1.2 million as an
Please note that the language and terminology used in this collection reflects the context and culture of the time of its creation, and may include culturally sensitive information. As an historical document, its contents may be at odds with contemporary views and terminology. The information within this collection does not reflect the views of the Smithsonian Institution, but is available in its original form to facilitate research. For questions or comments regarding sensitive content, access, and use related to this collection, please contact email@example.com.