FedSmith.com has received an anonymous comment from a reader asserting that the original characterization of a court case in a FedSmith.com article was incorrect.
The comment was posted anonymously, so we are unable to respond directly as we have no way to respond to anonymous comments. However, we looked into it and we are pleased to set the record straight.
The comments and our response are posted in the comments section of the original article.
The decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in this case contains the following sentences:
“Within days of his arrival at the DEA Academy, however, an altercation at a bar in Georgetown involving one of his classmates changed the path of Mr. Hathaway’s career at DEA. Although Mr. Hathaway was cleared of any wrongdoing in the incident, he was immediately reassigned from the Academy to DEA’s Boston office.”
While it is not the focal point point, the FedSmith.com article entitled “It Depends on How You Define ‘Use’ contains the following sentence:
“While at DEA, he (referring to Hathaway) got into a fight in a bar in Washington, DC and found himself reassigned to the vehicle fleet office in Boston.”
As the court decision states, Mr. Hathaway was cleared of any wrongdoing from an allegation from one of his classmates regarding an altercation in a bar.
As reflected by the court’s decision, therefore, the statement that “he got into a fight in a bar” is not supported by the facts as stated by the court and FedSmith.com apologizes for the error.
The entire Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision on which this article is based is available here.
