WASHINGTON (CN) - The United States and its contractor left a U.S. citizen to rot in a Cuban prison, failing to warn him that his U.S.-sponsored mission to distribute Internet equipment in Cuba is illegal, Alan Gross and his wife claim in court.
Alan Gross and his wife Judith sued Development Alternatives Inc. and the United States, in Federal Court.
Gross, now 63, was arrested in 2009 on a trip to Cuba, while working as a subcontractor for Maryland-based Development Alternatives (DAI) on a government project.
Gross's mission in Cuba was to increase access to the Internet and wireless technologies, particularly for Cuba's small Jewish community, according to the complaint.
"Plaintiff Alan Gross, a United States citizen who was born and raised in this country, has been imprisoned in Cuba since Dec. 3, 2009," the complaint states. "Mr. Gross is imprisoned in Cuba due to his work on a project that defendant United States negligently directed, organized, and oversaw, and that defendant DAI, the government contractor chosen for the project, conducted not only negligently, but also with gross negligence and a willful disregard for Mr. Gross' rights and safety. The project, which was intended to increase the availability of Internet access in Cuba, required that Mr. Gross make several trips there, the fifth of which resulted in his wrongful arrest and detention. Unless Mr. Gross' wife, plaintiff Judith Gross, succeeds in her efforts to secure his earlier release, Mr. Gross likely will remain imprisoned in Cuba for another 12 years, the remainder of the 15-year sentence that the Cuban government imposed on him."
The couple claims that Gross's arrest and imprisonment could have been avoided had Uncle Sam and the contractor properly trained him and taken steps to protect him.
"Worse, defendant DAI, with negligence, gross negligence and willful disregard for plaintiffs' rights, failed to take these basic remedial steps because doing so would have delayed or prevented DAI's complete performance under part of a lucrative contract with defendant United States, thereby depriving defendant DAI of significant revenue," the complaint states. "Indeed, upon information and belief, defendant DAI's business model depends upon obtaining and performing contracts with defendant United States.
"Defendant DAI engaged in this behavior - putting profits before safety - despite having, along with defendant United States, superior knowledge regarding the risks posed to Mr. Gross, and despite being the entity that primarily interacted with Mr. Gross on the project. Indeed, on several occasions during the project, Mr. Gross expressed concerns about the operation. DAI did nothing in response, choosing, instead, simply to forward those concerns to defendant United States, while DAI continued to make money. Rather than protecting Mr. Gross, DAI responded to Mr. Gross by pressuring him to finish the project or to find someone else who would.