By Jim Crabtree

CLEVELAND, Ohio, May 10, 2002 (ENS) - For the first time a federal prosecutor has won a case against the Department of Justice for harassment stemming from attempts to prosecute environmental crimes. In a decision Thursday, a U.S. Department of Labor Court ruled that the Department of Justice (DOJ) cannot retaliate against its own prosecutors for investigating crimes.

The court awarded $200,000 in punitive damages to Assistant U.S. Attorney, Greg Sassé, who accused DOJ managers of conducting an extended campaign of harassment against him, including intimidation, humiliation and denial of both promotions and advanced training.

Plane approaches the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (Photo courtesy CHIA)

"This decision establishes that the Department of Justice is not above the law," said Sassé. “This is not an isolated incident. This is part of a pattern that needs to be addressed and corrected. This goes up through my chain of command to the Deputy Attorney General in D.C.”

“Someone like me gets in their way. Prosecutors like me are a perennial problem for them because we want the law enforced appropriately and correctly. I take my oath of office seriously and won’t violate it. People like me are a thorn in their side. So, they have to try to get rid of us one way or the other.”

"Unfortunately, my case is not isolated," he said. "Environmental prosecutors are becoming an endangered species within DOJ. I know prosecutors who are being harassed and who are being destroyed."

"It’s a pattern," Sassé said. "I know of other individuals who are going through it. They are afraid of what is happening to them, what will happen to them and what will continue to happen to them. They don’t want to make it worse.”

Attorney General John Ashcroft heads the U.S. Department of Justice (Photo courtesy DOJ)

"This case stands for the proposition that prosecutors can be whistleblowers," said Executive Director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), attorney Jeff Ruch. Another PEER attorney represented Sassé during the DOJ's attempts to dismiss the matter.

Ruch said, "Greg is just one example of the de-emphasis on environmental prosecution during the Clinton administration - a trend we are not seeing reversed under Bush."

“When Greg Sassé came to us in the mid-90s saying he had been restrained from environmental prosecution by Clinton appointees, we were curious as to whether or not this was more widespread since his accusations were so counterintuitive," said Ruch. "Our investigations revealed that there was an overall decline in environmental prosecution beginning with the Clinton administration.”

In December 1998, PEER published "Uneven Justice," an anonymous report written and reviewed by public employees which concluded that during the Clinton administration there were 60 percent fewer convictions, 52 percent fewer prosecutions and a 36 percent increase in refusals to prosecute environmental crimes.

PEER's analysis of the latest figures available shows cases referred by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for criminal prosecutions dropped by 20 percent during the 2001 fiscal year.

EPA referrals under the Toxic Substance Control Act fell off 80 percent during 2001. There were 54 fewer referrals for prosecution under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act referrals went down 53 percent.

Environmental prosecutors bring to justice polluters such as the party that spilled this oil into a body of water. (Photo courtesy EPA)

PEER analyst Jessica Revere said, "We can expect even greater declines in 2002 with the removal of nearly half of the criminal investigators and the new agency leadership's pledge to de-emphasize environmental enforcement."

Sasse says there is often a trade-off between DOJ officials and politicians that results in the blockage of environmental investigations.

“If a governmental supervisor wants to have a favor owed to him by a powerful political entity, only an environmental case is going to do it," Sasse told ENS. "Going easy on a drug lord is not going to do anything to further a career. Environmental cases can do that. Environmental cases act as a barometer because of those factors.”

“When someone says, ‘What’s in it for me?’ the answer is ‘nothing’ if the environmental crime is prosecuted correctly," Sassé explained. "But if you want a favor owed to you, if there’s someone interested in getting something and giving you something for it in return, if you do not have integrity you may cut a deal. A quarterback can’t guarantee that he will win a game, but he can guarantee that he will lose one.”

Halls of justice in the U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio (Photo courtesy OHND)

Sasse said although the current decision in his favor is a personal victory, it does not go far enough. “The part of the decision that disturbs me is that prosecutors are not protected by these statutes as a technical legal issue. These people are not protected in the course of their normal duties. So, in the future, this kind of harassment which I went through for 10 years, can be applied to an individual trying to enforce the law in an evenhanded or appropriate manner."

Sasse warns that DOJ officials could "assign them a double case load, give them an alcoholic secretary or enforce arbitrary, quick deadlines on complex cases. All this was done to me and it is being done to others.”

Sasse said his legal team is planning to appeal the issue that prosecutors are not protected. "The wording of the environmental statutes states that no employer shall take any action against any individual who does anything to bring about any environmental course of action. Certainly," he said, "a criminal prosecutor bringing cases falls within those limits.”