Secret Service agents claim White House turning blind eye to racism

Officials with the nonprofit Black Agents of the Secret Service (BASS) allege that for the past four years -- the lawsuit was filed in 2000 -- “the Bush Administration and the Secret Service have used the judicial process to prevent a discussion of this case on its merits.” BASS representatives say not a “single witness” has been called “nor has a single document been produced” in the case to date.

“The refusal to address the merits of the Black Agents’ case is shameful,” said Special Agent Reginald G. Moore, BASS president, in a prepared statement. “It is particularly disappointing that nothing was done after (former U.S.) Rep. J.C. Watts arranged a meeting with White House Associate Counsel Stuart Bowen and the class representatives to discuss the case. This is not a situation where the White House is unaware of the issues, nor could they be after the appearance of several front-page stories on the gross mismanagement and racial discrimination in the Secret Service.”

The alleged racial discrimination problems within the Secret Service -- formerly part of the Treasury Department and now part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) -- appear to be part of a widespread pattern of racism within major federal law enforcement agencies. It is a pattern that numerous government whistleblowers contend has not been addressed by the current administration, and it is a pattern they argue represents a threat not only to civil rights, but to the national security of this country.

Past stories on Narco News have detailed the class-action discrimination lawsuit filed by current and former Hispanic U.S. Customs agents against DHS. That case also has been pending in federal court for years.

More recently, special agents within DHS’ Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were informed that they would not be receiving foreign-language pay due to “budget” constraints.

In addition, a resolution adopted by a national organization representing Hispanic law-enforcement officers charged that former DEA administrator Asa Hutchinson (who is now one of the top guns at DHS) has a track record of “perpetuating an atmosphere of distrust, reprisal and retaliation against minority employees….”

The delays in the African American Secret Service agents’ discrimination case led their attorneys last week to resort to the extreme measure of filing special pleadings (a Writ of Mandamus) with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. As part of the pleadings, they asked the federal appeals court to intercede and force the federal district court to take action in the case.

“We take this unusual step today because we cannot take four more years of denial and delay,” said Secret Service agent Moore, who is a named plaintiff in the discrimination litigation. “Every day that passes, we lose witnesses and evidence.  

“The Secret Service ‘accidentally’ fails to retain relevant documents. For the future of the Secret Service, we must have a hearing on the merits of more than 20 years of racial discrimination and a remedy that dissolves the ‘Good Ol’ Boy’ network, which has worked so often to disadvantage black agents.”

The class-action case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of some 250 African American special agents of the United States Secret Service. The lawsuit contends that the Secret Service has “discriminated against African-American Special Agents, from at least January 1974 forward, in its personnel policies, practices, and procedures.”

More from the Writ of Mandamus pleadings:

Over four years have passed since the government filed its motion to dismiss and the Petitioners filed their motion for class certification. Petitioners have waited patiently, but they are suffering prejudice. They have not been allowed to depose any fact witnesses, analyze any personnel databases, or conduct any discovery whatsoever. In the meanwhile, the Secret Service admits that it has not in the past and will not in the future preserve electronic mail evidence relevant to the present action. Petitioners have no way to determine if the Secret Service is complying with its responsibility to preserve other documents relevant to the case.  

Evidence is slipping away and Petitioners are beginning to lose the cohesiveness and cooperation of the class needed to prosecute this action. Without a sufficient number of participating class members, Plaintiffs will not be able to locate sufficient witnesses, documents and other information needed for the case.

Judge Reacts

The filing of the writ on Oct. 22 did prompt quick action on the part of the judge, who, after years of issuing no rulings in the case, appears to have worked all weekend to prepare a ruling on the pending motions in the lawsuit.

In that ruling, issued Oct. 24, Judge Richard Roberts determined that “despite the (agents’) compelling allegations of discrimination within the Secret Service” the class-action claims should be dismissed on technical grounds.

The claims on behalf of the class -- a group of some 250 African American agents – were thrown out because they had not been completely exhausted through federal administrative channels before being brought into federal court, the judge ruled. Lawyers for the agents stress, though, that the class claims can be filed again with the court after they wind their way through the 180-day administrative-review process.

However, Judge Roberts did not dismiss the individual discrimination claims of five Secret Service agents who are party to the case.

On another front, the judge’s ruling failed to address a potential conflict-of-interest issue raised by the writ. In a footnote included in those pleadings, lawyers for the agents raise questions about Judge Roberts relationship with a potential witness.

The footnote:

In a July 13, 2000 Order, Judge Richard Roberts disclosed to the parties that he was personal friends with then Treasury Undersecretary James Johnson, who had supervised the United States Secret Service for the Department of Treasury during much of the relevant time period. Judge Roberts disclosed that he and Johnson had discussed the case as it had been reported by the Washington Post one morning over breakfast.

In addition, Judge Roberts disclosed that as a Department of Justice attorney he served on the “Church Arson Task Force,” co-chaired by Undersecretary Johnson. As a result, he was exposed to the “Good Ol’Boy Roundup” investigation which had documented organized racism by Agents in the Justice and Treasury law enforcement bureaus, including the Secret Service.  

At that time, Judge Roberts deemed recusal (stepping down from the case) inappropriate because there was no indication that he would be required to assess then Undersecretary Johnson’s credibility and that the Roundup allegations were a small part of Petitioners’ complaint. Four years later, the facts have changed substantially.

Through Freedom of Information Requests, witness interviews and other investigative techniques, Petitioners have learned more about the Roundups and Undersecretary Johnson’s role in the subsequent investigation. Petitioners believe that Treasury Undersecretary James Johnson will be a key witness and that the “Good Ol’ Boy Roundups” will be a significant part of this case. Thus, Judge Roberts will be required to assess Undersecretary Johnson’s credibility and to rule on matters concerning the Roundup investigation.

Direct Appeals

Beyond the effort to address the discrimination problem through the courts, the African American Secret Service agents also have attempted to resolve the case through agency channels as well.

In a January 2003 letter, Moore wrote the following to Secret Service Director Ralph Basham:

We are writing to see if you are interested in discussing a potential resolution of the race discrimination class action that was filed almost three years ago in federal court. Throughout this difficult period while this case has been pending, the Black Agents have remained loyal and dedicated to the Secret Service. It was always our desire to resolve these matters informally outside of court, but we had little choice when former Director Stafford refused to engage in any dialogue with us.

The Black Agents want to achieve two objectives 1) basic personnel reforms that would ensure a level playing field for all Agents; and 2) reasonable compensation for those Black Agents who have been damaged by unfair personnel practices and policies. We are committed to a flexible approach and it is our desire to resolve this issue to the mutual benefit of all concerned.

I hope that you will give serious consideration to opening up a dialogue with us and taking the first step towards healing this painful rift in the Secret Service family.

Basham responded to Moore in February 2003, as follows:

... The Secret Service must maintain its acknowledged expertise in protecting our nation’s leaders, visiting world leaders and our nation’s financial infrastructure, while actively seeking out new ideas, skills and viewpoints. The continued success of the Secret Service and the security of our homeland depend on all of us working together and maximizing the skills, contributions, and potential of every single member of this organization.

In regard to the portion of your letter which concerns ongoing litigation, your letter has been referred to the Department of Justice which represents the Secret Service in that matter.

According to the African America special agents involved in the case, the stakes are too high for the Secret Service, the court, or the White House, to continue stonewalling on this issue.

“This is an important case involving the civil rights ... of African-American Special Agents of the Secret Service,” the Writ of Mandamus pleadings assert. “Many of the Agents have risked their lives through the years protecting the lives of the President and his family. They deserve a trial on the merits and the chance to purge their workplace of an alleged history of over twenty plus years of racial discrimination.”

Former Secret Service agent Cheryl Tyler, who is a plaintiff in the case, sums it up this way:

“We have been waiting patiently for years. Justice delayed is justice denied.”