Dr. Vivian Cheung, 56, of Bethesda, one of the top researchers of Lou Gehrig’s disease, is suing the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), based in Chevy Chase, alleging disability discrimination.
After failed mediation, both sides presented their opening arguments Monday in front of a jury and Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge Jill Cummins in Rockville.
Cheung’s attorney, David Oppenheimer, said that after his client told HHMI about her rare genetic condition and disability in 2015, the institution’s view of her changed.
“Suddenly, from that point forward, they could not see the scientist in her, they did not see the humanity in her; they only saw her disability,” Oppenheimer said.
HHMI’s attorney, Chong Park, said that the decision not to renew Cheung’s contract had nothing to do with her disability.
“This is not a case about disability discrimination,” Park said. “This is a case about scientific rigor.”
Cheung said she first began to receive funding from HHMI in 2008 and operated her lab out of the University of Michigan where she became a tenured professor.
Cheung was one of the top researchers in her field, exploring how RNA shapes contribute to the emergence and progression of Lou Gehrig’s disease when HHMI selected her in 2008 to be one of the institute’s investigators.
Her breakthrough discovery: Determining that there is a huge difference between DNA and RNA.
“During my early times years at HHMI, we discovered that the RNA sequence is not an identical copy to DNA,” Cheung said. “We used to think that DNA is just a blueprint of everything, and RNA is an identical copy.”
She said this helped her learn that patients with ALS Type-4, which is what she mainly focused on, have mutated RNA. This type of ALS results in distal muscle weakness and atrophy with the onset of symptoms before the age of 25 and a slow rate of progression, according to the National Library of Medicine.
Also, Oppenheimer said that she has been a visiting scientist at the National Institute of Health (NIH) in Bethesda for nine years, seeing children with rare conditions and researching their cases.
Her contract was renewed in 2013, and she continued to receive annual funding from HHMI for her research, Cheung said. But, in 2015, “her world changed,” Oppenheimer told the jury.
In 2015, she began to develop symptoms, which she learned were due to a rare genetic disease. It made it difficult for her to walk, and it affected her vision and blood pressure, Oppenheimer said.
While those symptoms made her life more difficult, what changed her life the most was a spinal cord injury during a medical procedure that required her to use a wheelchair, Cheung said.
She informed HHMI of her diagnosis and symptoms, and according to Oppenheimer, the institute began to discriminate against her.
For example, she needed accommodations to travel back and forth between NIH in Bethesda and the University of Michigan, and HHMI “intimidated her into dropping her request for travel accommodations,” Oppenheimer said.
Also, at that point, Oppenheimer said that Cheung was staying in Bethesda, both to continue researching children with rare conditions and to receive treatment for her own condition. HHMI said they would terminate her if she did not return in-person to the University of Michigan, Oppenheimer said.
He also said that the institute tried to force her into medical retirement and that the reviewers performing her review in 2018 for contract renewal knew that. He said her review was “tainted.”
“They saw her as too disabled to continue to work, which simply wasn’t true,” Oppenheimer said.
HHMI strongly denied these allegations. Park said that HHMI did not renew her contract in 2018 due to “nothing but her science.” He said that no member of scientist leadership discussed Cheung’s disability during her review process.
He said that on a letter grading scale of A (highest) to C (lowest), she received 14 C grades and zero A grades. He said that the review process, which used to take place every five years (now it’s every seven years), is extremely rigorous, and scientists are held to a sky-high standard.
Park said that during the review process, investigators face independent reviewers and are required to explain their scientific research in an oral presentation on what they have done and what they hope for the future. Then, there’s a Q&A session after.
He said that this process is taken seriously because the institute has had investigators who are world-class scientists, and in its history, it has included more than 30 Nobel Prize winners.
Also, Park said that HHMI has made numerous accommodations for Cheung due to her health issues. He said that this included the day of her presentation when they allowed her to have her oral presentation in the morning and ensured that a hotel room was available nearby if she needed it.
He also said that the institute has advocated for her success, especially because they made exceptions for her switching host institutions multiple times, even though investigators are usually only allowed to transfer once.
Within a year of her starting to work with HHMI, they allowed her to transfer from the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania to the University of Pennsylvania, Park said. In 2013, she transferred to the University of Michigan. In 2015, they authorized a transfer to Maryland, even though she never ended up transferring, according to Park.
Park concluded by reinforcing the argument that: “this is not a case about discrimination.”
Cheung said her research is still continuing, but on a smaller scale because she does not have the same funding and resources she had while working with HHMI.
Lawyers from each side will continue to share their arguments over the next week. The trial is scheduled to end on Dec. 13.
