Documentation to "My Case"

-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------- X
TIBOR GASPARIK,
Plaintiff,
…………………………………………………………………CV-05-3817 (SJF)(ARL)
-against-
………………………………………………..…………...…AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION
STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- X

LORI L. PACK, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York, and specifically the United Sates District Court of the Eastern District of New York, declares the following under penalty of perjury:

1. I am an Assistant Attorney General with the office of Eliot Spitzer, New York State Attorney General, and I represent the defendant STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY in this matter.

2. This affidavit is submitted on behalf of Defendant in opposition to the instant application by the Plaintiff for an order compelling the production of certain discovery from the Defendant. Simply stated, the information Plaintiff is seeking is completely irrelevant to any legal claim which the Plaintiff may have.

3. The allegations in this case relate not to political discrimination, but to discrimination based upon the Plaintiff's approach toward scientific research. In the deposition of Plaintiff taken on February 2 and February 28, 2006, the following testimony codifies the basis for Plaintiffs claim: [Copies of the relevant pages of the deposition transcripts are annexed hereto as Exhibit "A"].

Page 109
A. In the case of Professor Lieberman, he is somebody who's a dedicated liberal. He is committed to the cause.
Q. What cause? What cause?
A. He is a committed liberal.
Q. What does that mean?
A. That is the highest thing to have. He wanted to create a department that would have people, like-minded people around, and I wasn't like-minded.
Q. What is like-minded?
A. People who think the way that he does.
Q. How does he think?
A. Well, it's the whole way of the approach to life, the philosophy, the way you do research. For example, the way you teach, to promote liberal causes for example. You know, in liberal causes, the concern for environment.
Q. I'm asking you to define what you consider to be their liberal values that you did not conform to?
A. The community has the priority to individual. You are expected to sacrifice for the community. And this is the scientific community.
Q. That is one. What is another one?
A. You always, in this case, produce research that supports the consensus, what the community prefers -- identifies as their priorities, the liberal causes. You are supposed to produce results that will support those causes.
Q. That is two.
A. You have ideology that is more important than science. Once you accept that the political process, the ideology, is more important than the science or research, then research becomes fraud because you are just doing the research that supports what you are expected to support even if you are compromising your integrity in this case.
Q. That is your definition of liberalism?
A. That is the manifestation of liberalism in science right now.

4. Thus, despite what is alleged in the complaint, Plaintiff's claim is not predicated on any First Amendment issue, but rather that the Defendant disagreed with his philosophy toward research. This has never been recognized as a cognizable claim for discrimination.

5. In an effort to prove his claim, Plaintiff is seeking documents and information that are completely irrelevant to any true First Amendment claim and a production of which would violate the privacy of the research faculty at Stony Brook University. Plaintiff believes that there is a conspiracy of "liberal minded" individuals working in educational institutions throughout the country and apparently, the only way he believes he can prove this is by casting a very, very broad net in order to fabricate some type of "evidence" that would support his claim.

Page 122
Q. Is it your testimony that the public school system in Long Island is part of this conspiracy?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it your testimony that the National Science Foundation is part of this conspiracy?
A. Absolutely. I don't believe they have a single conservative on their staff. They are all liberals. Not a single one, including the director of the National Science Foundation that was appointed by the President. He did not respond. I send him two letters. He didn't respond.

A. As I said, I'm blacklisted.
Q. By whom?
A. By the university, the department. The whole, you know, the education establishment. I am flagged as a conservative. That is it. There is no way. There is no way I can ever be accepted at any university and in public schools. Maybe in some private school, perhaps, but not in public schools. I don't believe that will happen. It's just not going to happen. You know, they might use me from time to time to teach as a substitute teacher for a while and they will never call me back.
Q. Mr. Gasparik, what was the basis of your claim here? Because after five hours, I still don't quite understand the basis of your claim.
A. Persecution. Violation of my civil rights. Making me work on the conditions of constant mental anguish. The fact that I made tremendous contributions to the department and to the advancement of science and they were just silent. I haven't heard any, any, anything positive. Anything
positive. All these years, no encouragement, nothing. That is my complaint. That my stay at Stony
Brook was a nightmare. That is my complaint. That is a violation of my civil rights. Nobody should be expected to be submitted to this kind of treatment, especially not at a university. My life was nightmare for the last 20 years. That is my complaint. That is not enough?
Q. It's actually not under the law.

6. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a recognized cause of action for discrimination based upon a "liberal" way of performing employment tasks as opposed to a "conservative" way of performing employment tasks. This does not even fall under any First Amendment protection, since a research facility has every right to employ research scientists who will promote the institution's particular research methods and goals. Plaintiff’s employment was terminated solely because the project he had been working on was no longer being funded by federal research grants.

7. Attached hereto as Exhibits "B" and "C" are copies of Plaintiffs discovery demands that he is seeking full compliance with. Attached hereto as Exhibits "D", "E" and "F" are Defendant's responses to these demands. It is clear from these demands that Plaintiff is seeking information that is not discoverable under any applicable statutes or rules.

Page 112
Q. Is that the basis for this lawsuit?
A. The basis for this lawsuit is what I believe is the real cause behind all this incidents, which is that they don't want to hire anybody that is not thinking the way they do, which in this case is conservative scientists.
Q. What is conservative scientists?
A. Let me just say --
Q. I need a definition of conservative scientist?
A. Let me just say that since I have been in research and in this community for an extended period of time, there was an enormous change in the science.
Q. I'm just trying to understand how it is that you feel you are discriminated against because your way of thinking is different from the department's way of thinking. That is why I'm asking you to define what you call conservative and liberal. Because I'm trying to understand why it is that you feel you are discriminated against because your thinking is different from theirs. What do you consider conservative thinking of the department that you do not fit into?
A. My conservative thinking.
Q. Your conservative thinking? I'm sorry.
A. In research, because that is -- it is a manifestation of these differences in philosophy and research, what I value is efficiency, productivity, good use of the finances. In the case of this liberal approach to research, what is valued is the community-based research. Interaction among people.
Q. You do not agree with that philosophy?
A. It is compromising your integrity because you are now forced to do research the way that the scientific community right now prefers to do research.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the motion by Plaintiff be denied in its entirety.

DATED: Hauppauge, New York
March 21, 2006

Respectfully submitted,

ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General of the State of New York

By:
LORI L. PACK (LLP/8303)
Assistant Attorney General
300 Motor Parkway – Suite 205
Hauppauge, New York 11788
(631) 231-2424