Lawyers add to damages suit for Chinese-American scientist Sherry Chen
- Sacked hydrologist is seeking US$5 million from US government after her dismissal on spying grounds was partially reversed
- Chen’s case prompted Congress members to raise concerns that federal employees were being racially targeted

Lawyers for a Chinese-American scientist have filed a complaint against the US departments of commerce and justice to support a lawsuit seeking US$5 million in damages resulting from her partially reversed dismissal from a government job.
The complaint – filed on November 1 by Chen’s lawyer, John Hemann of the law firm Cooley LLP, and announced on Tuesday – was made after Chen learned that the Commerce Department unit that investigated her – the Investigations and Threat Management Service (ITMS) – was disbanded following a Senate committee report that called it “a rogue, unaccountable police force without a clear mission”.
In 2019, Chen filed a civil suit against the two government departments, seeking accountability for wrongful prosecution. The separate complaint filed this month adds new accusations, including “intrusion into private affairs, false arrest, intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress”, and is required to give the government an opportunity to respond before the claims become part of the lawsuit.
“Sherry Chen’s successful and very private life was derailed when ITMS … launched an illegal criminal investigation of Ms Chen based entirely on one colleague’s false and racially charged accusations,” the complaint says. “ITMS had no legal authority to investigate her, and that what happened to her was part a discriminatory scheme to target employees of Chinese and Southeast Asian descent.”
The complaint continued that “even after the … administrative judge issued a scathing opinion that reinstated Ms Chen, the [Commerce Department] continued to refuse to acknowledge the injury it has caused Ms Chen. Instead, it continues to try to destroy what is left of Ms Chen’s professional career by refusing to let her set foot in the office and appealing the administrative judge’s decision”.
The departments of commerce and justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment.