|
According to the plea documents, when Mayberry was nearing retirement from federal service, he and his supervisor explored ways he could return to work for the Department of Interior after his official retirement. It was decided, according to Mayberry's admission, to create a consulting position which, while created and intended specifically for Mayberry, was required by law to be the subject of open and fair competitive bidding procedures. Mayberry also admitted that in his official capacity before retiring, he created the "statement of work" that would subsequently be used to define the position and evaluate the bids of Mayberry and his competitors. Mayberry was the only applicant out of all bidders for the position to receive a grade of "excellent" on every qualification category and was awarded the contract.
The case was investigated by the Interior Department's Office of Inspector General. The prosecution is being handled by the Public Integrity Section, which is part of Justice Department's Criminal Division.
Mayberry faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison, a fine of $250,000 and supervised release following his incarceration. The sentencing has been set for November 14, 2008, before Judge Kennedy.
GAO found that the extent to which 24 major federal agencies reported that they have implemented encryption and developed plans to implement encryption of sensitive information varied across agencies. From July through September 2007, the major agencies collectively reported that they had not yet installed encryption technology to protect sensitive information on about 70 percent of their laptop computers and handheld devices. Additionally, agencies reported uncertainty regarding the applicability of OMB's encryption requirements for mobile devices, specifically portable media.
GAO explained that while all agencies have initiated efforts to deploy encryption technologies, none had documented comprehensive plans to guide encryption implementation activities, such as installing and configuring appropriate technologies in accordance with federal guidelines, developing and documenting policies and procedures for managing encryption technologies, and training users. Consequently, the report concluded that federal information may remain at increased risk of unauthorized disclosure, loss, and modification.
To read the report, titled "Information Security: Federal Agency Efforts to Encrypt Sensitive Information Are Under Way, but Work Remains," GAO-08-525.
The story is being followed closely by the Spokesman-Review newspaper, which acquired the list and posted it on its website. The Justice Department, which also has the list, is refusing to release it to the public, saying it violates department policy.
The diploma mill sold both counterfeit degrees from real universities, as well as fake degrees from fictitious academic institutions. Many on the list who purchased degrees were from outside the U.S., generating national security concerns.
The ringleader of the scheme, Dixie Ellen Randock, 58, was sentenced in July to 3 years in prison for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud. She, along with her husband, also agreed to forfeit more than a half a million dollars in cash and a luxury car.
In this case, the appellant was a candidate for the U.S. Foreign Service. Soon after passing the required entrance examinations and receiving a medical clearance, the appellant learned that she had stage-one breast cancer. Upon hearing the news, the State Department, expressing concern that many of its overseas posts lack the follow-up care it believed the appellant required, revoked her medical clearance, disqualifying her from the Foreign Service. The appellant sued under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits federal agencies from discriminating in employment against disabled individuals - including those with a "record of" a disability. In her complaint, the appellant alleged that her surgical treatment (a mastectomy and simultaneous reconstructive surgery, followed by removal of her ovaries and fallopian tubes) rendered her cancer-free and able to work anywhere in the world without requiring specialized follow-up care. When the district court granted summary judgment to the State Department, the appellant turned to the D.C. Circuit.
In its decision, the D.C. Circuit explained that an individual is disabled under the Rehabilitation Act only if she can show that she: (1) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities; (2) has a "record of" such an impairment; or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment. The appeals court explained that the second disability definition was "tailor-made" for individuals such as the appellant, who claim they once suffered from a physical or mental impairment that substantially limited a major life activity, recovered from the impairment, but nonetheless faced employment discrimination because of it.
The D.C. Circuit went on to state that it is undisputed that the appellant has a history of breast cancer and that breast cancer qualifies as a "physical impairment" under the Act.
The court then turned to the issue of whether the appellant's cancer substantially limited her in a major life activity. Ruling for the first time on the issue for the circuit, the D.C. Circuit held that sexual relations constitutes a "major life activity" for the purposes of the Rehabilitation Act. The appeals court reasoned that sex is (1) "unquestionably" a significant human activity; (2) a basic physiological act practiced regularly by a vast portion of the population; (3) a cornerstone of family and marital life; (4) a conduit to emotional and spiritual fulfillment; and (5) a crucial element in intimate relationships. Thus, "sex easily qualifies as a ‘major' life activity," the court stated.
Having decided that engaging in sexual relations qualifies as a major life activity, the D.C. Circuit next determined whether the appellant sufficiently alleged a substantial limitation on that activity. According to the appellant, her breast cancer treatment rendered her completely unable to engage in sexual relations, the court stated. Due to scarring, her overall post-surgery physical appearance, lack of physical sensation, loss of libido accompanying her medication, or a combination of these factors, the appellant claims that her ability to enter into romantic relationships has been crippled indefinitely and perhaps permanently, the court stated. In its decision, the D.C. Circuit noted that the government failed to challenge the appellant's assertion that she was substantially limited in her ability to engage in sexual relations or that this limitation was anything but the direct result of her cancer treatment. "By failing to do so," the appeals court stated, "the government has effectively conceded - at least for summary judgment purposes - that [the appellant's] claimed impairment did, in fact, substantially limit her in a major life activity."
Thus, the D.C. Circuit found that, viewed in the light most favorable to the appellant, the record shows: (1) the State Department knew the appellant had a record of impairment (breast cancer); (2) the impairment did, in fact, substantially limit the major life activity of engaging in sexual relations; and (3) the State Department denied the appellant employment because of her cancer history.
The appeals court concluded, "The upshot is this: if an employer discriminates against an employee on the basis of a physical or mental impairment, or the record thereof, and if the impairment in fact qualifies as a ‘disability' under the Act, i.e., it substantially limits or once limited a major life activity, then the employer may be vulnerable to a charge of employment discrimination."
Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the State Department, and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings.
The case is Adams v. Rice, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, No. 07-5101, July 18, 2008.
