Opinion ID: 445561
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Events Leading to the Letter of Reprimand

Text: 8 In late 1980, Reuber's malathion paper attracted publicity when the United States Department of Agriculture sought to conduct aerial spraying with malathion in California in an effort to eradicate the mediterranean fruit fly, which threatened the state's agricultural industry. Upon request, Reuber sent a copy of his malathion study to Chris Jenkins, an employee of the John Muir Institute in Berkeley, California. Reuber put his office address at FCRC on the paper, which apparently led Jenkins and others at the John Muir Institute to assume the work was sponsored and approved by FCRC and NCI. According to the government, this misconception was furthered by the John Muir Institute's distribution of a packet which cited Reuber's study as that of FCRC/NCI. Brief for Federal Appellees, No. 83-1536, at 4. 9 Following the distribution of Reuber's paper, NCI officials began receiving a succession of telephone calls asking who Reuber was, and whether NCI still stood behind its conclusions in prior studies that malathion was not carcinogenic. See Brief for Appellee United States, No. 83-1536 at 8. 7 In addition, a letter from a California official to NCI complaining about Reuber's study was forwarded to defendants Adamson and Hartwell, both officials at NCI. 10 Hartwell and Adamson began an investigation. Hartwell contacted Dr. James Liverman at Bionetics and alerted him to the controversy prompted by Reuber's study. According to Reuber, Hartwell subsequently accused him of misusing government funds and misrepresenting himself as an NCI employee. See Brief for Appellant, No. 82-2376, at 14. Liverman relayed these allegations to defendant James Nance, President of Bionetics, who in turn notified FCRC Director Hanna of them. 11 At the same time, according to the government, Adamson checked with NCI pathologists and other scientists involved in the original malathion studies and concluded that their negative findings on the carcinogenicity of malathion were correct. See Brief for Federal Appellees, No. 83-1536, at 9. He contacted Hanna with this information. 12 The parties disagree about the events that ensued. According to the government, Dr. Hanna took the matter over from there. Brief for Federal Appellees, No. 83-1536, at 10. Hanna originally wanted to fire Reuber, but was convinced not to do so by defendant Dr. Vincent DeVita, the director of NCI and the person ultimately responsible for the review of Bionetics' FCRC contract. Id. Hanna instead drafted a strong letter of reprimand, and despite suggestions by defendant Dr. William Payne, an NCI official, to tone it down a bit, sent it as originally drafted. Id. 13 According to Reuber's version, on the other hand, Hanna was pressured into disciplining Reuber by NCI officials who were very upset by Reuber's reinterpretation of the NCI [malathion] studies and his labelling as carcinogenic chemicals that NCI had found to be noncarcinogenic. Brief for Appellant, No. 82-2376, at 17. Reuber alleges that Hartwell went around the NCI telling people that this time he was 'going to get' plaintiff. Id. He also claims that, although NCI generally does not make employment decisions regarding Bionetics' employees at FCRC, Adamson instructed Hanna to call Reuber to straighten ... out matters, id., and DeVita ... insisted that Hanna write the letter of reprimand. Brief for Appellant, No. 83-1536, at 11.