Skip To Content
JEWISH. INDEPENDENT. NONPROFIT.
Breaking News

Alan Gross $60M Suit Rejected by Court

A federal appeals court in Washington on Friday rejected a lawsuit filed against the U.S. government by an American contractor imprisoned in Cuba who says he was not warned about the risks of working on the communist-controlled island.

Alan Gross and his wife Judy filed the $60 million lawsuit in November 2012 for gross negligence against the U.S. government and Development Alternatives Inc, a Bethesda, Maryland, contractor.

Gross settled with DAI for undisclosed terms in 2013, and a U.S. district court rejected his claim against the government.

The appeals court panel on Friday upheld the district court’s finding that the U.S. government has sovereign immunity because damage to Gross occurred outside the country.

The lawsuit said Gross, 65, should have received better information and training for his job of increasing Internet access and the flow of communications. Gross was working for DAI under a contract with the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Gross has been jailed in Cuba since December 2009. He is serving a 15-year sentence for providing Internet gear to Jewish Cubans under a U.S. program that Cuba views as subversive.

The United States says Gross was merely helping the local population get connected as part of a democracy-building project.

Information is tightly controlled on the Caribbean island, Internet use is limited, and visitors are not allowed to carry satellite technology.

A spokeswoman for one of Gross’ lawyers declined to comment.

Because of Gross’ detention, tensions have mounted in already troubled U.S.-Cuban relations.

Gross has threatened to end his life if he is not released before his next birthday in May, his wife and lawyer say.

The three-judge panel said the Supreme Court had previously held that the so-called foreign country exception “bars all claims based on any injury suffered in a foreign country, regardless of where the tortious act or omission occurred.”

The judges suggested that any sense of injustice that the law did not cover people sent to foreign countries at the behest of the United States was a “policy argument … better directed to Congress.”

A message from our CEO & publisher Rachel Fishman Feddersen

I hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, I’d like to ask you to please support the Forward’s award-winning, nonprofit journalism during this critical time.

We’ve set a goal to raise $260,000 by December 31. That’s an ambitious goal, but one that will give us the resources we need to invest in the high quality news, opinion, analysis and cultural coverage that isn’t available anywhere else.

If you feel inspired to make an impact, now is the time to give something back. Join us as a member at your most generous level.

—  Rachel Fishman Feddersen, Publisher and CEO

With your support, we’ll be ready for whatever 2025 brings.

Republish This Story

Please read before republishing

We’re happy to make this story available to republish for free, unless it originated with JTA, Haaretz or another publication (as indicated on the article) and as long as you follow our guidelines. You must credit the Forward, retain our pixel and preserve our canonical link in Google search.  See our full guidelines for more information, and this guide for detail about canonical URLs.

To republish, copy the HTML by clicking on the yellow button to the right; it includes our tracking pixel, all paragraph styles and hyperlinks, the author byline and credit to the Forward. It does not include images; to avoid copyright violations, you must add them manually, following our guidelines. Please email us at editorial@forward.com, subject line “republish,” with any questions or to let us know what stories you’re picking up.

We don't support Internet Explorer

Please use Chrome, Safari, Firefox, or Edge to view this site.

Exit mobile version