As many know, iaedp is facing an existential crisis brought about by its own lack of transparency, past irresponsible management decisions, litigation, and administrative complaints filed with the IRS, Department of Labor and the California Franchise Tax Board.

It has been almost a year since I last wrote on iaedp. This article is meant to give an update on various issues. As before, these updates will be coming from a person who is in an adversarial relationship with iaedp.

On behalf of aggrieved eating disorder certified professionals and a potential class, I filed the lawsuit in federal court in Dallas, Texas. Iaedp, Dena Cabrera, Dr. Joel Jahraus and Dr. Ralph Carson were named as defendants. They are represented by a law firm based in Chicago. Ms. Harken is represented by a different law firm. All attorneys are from reputable firms and have strong reputations.

The case was moved to the Central District of Illinois, a district in which Ms. Harken resides. Despite the passage of time, the case is in its infancy and none of the substantive merits have been decided.  iaedp, its named board members and Ms. Harken have all filed motions to dismiss the case. In essence, the defendants are saying that the plaintiffs have not properly plead the case, do not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit and did not allege sufficient facts supporting their claims. These types of motions to dismiss are standard practice in most cases filed in federal court.

Naturally, the Plaintiffs disagree with the Defendants’ position, are requesting that the motions be denied and the case be allowed to proceed. The Court has not yet ruled on those motions.

In the unlikely event the motions are granted and the case is dismissed, an appeal will be filed in the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, Illinois.  When the motions are denied, the case will proceed to the next stage. This involves engaging in extensive discovery, depositions and document production.

Regardless, the lawsuit will not be decided any time soon as settlement is unlikely. In the past almost two years, including before filing suit, the plaintiffs made at least three (3) settlement offers with the hope of expeditiously resolving this matter.

iaedp chose to not make any substantive response.  

Before filing suit, we sent a letter with information and evidence showing improprieties and concerns about iaedp. We requested that we sit down and talk as professionals. We even suggested bringing in a neutral mediator to assist. No monetary demands. No demands that any iaedp officer be fired. iaedp and Ms. Harken decided to “lawyer up” and refused to talk. This necessitated filing the lawsuit. Had Ms. Harken and iaedp agreed to meet, perhaps the lawsuit would not have been necessary. And iaedp would not be on the edge of collapse.

In the past few months, we again made a settlement offer to Drs. Carson, Jarhaus and Ms. Cabrera. We requested that with their attorneys present, they sit down and have a professional, frank discussion about any knowledge or information they had of iaedp. In exchange, they would be dismissed from the lawsuit. No monetary demands. No public statements demanded. Just a request to talk. Again, our efforts were rejected.

As such, the parties are now set in their positions. No further settlement discussions are anticipated. No settlement is anticipated. When all efforts to salvage what is left of iaedp have been refused, what is there to discuss? Every attempt we made to resolve all issues so that past sins could be addressed leading to a more hopeful future were rejected.

There are times in a lawsuit, if one side is pushing settlement discussions, the other side looks upon that as a sign of weakness.  The opposing attorney thinks, “They recognize the holes in their own case! We can exploit this.” At times, that is accurate.

However, there is another reality. At times one side may wish to pursue settlement for a much greater purpose. By addressing past sins, and then moving forward, the needs of a community are often best served. It is a sign of being willing to work for the common good. Far from a weakness, it demonstrates strength. It is not a sign of an unwillingness to go to war. Instead, it is a willingness to exhaust all possible avenues of resolution before going to war. Because that may be in the best interest of a community. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

An expeditious, confidential settlement was in iaedp and Ms. Harken’s best interest. Especially when you consider the following facts, all of which have been confirmed as being accurate:

1. For a significant period of time, iaedp was not in good standing in the State of California, the state in which it was organized;
2. When a California organization is listed as not being in good standing, it does not have the authority to conduct business (including perhaps, overseeing and issuing board certifications);
3. For most of its existence, iaedp was not registered as a foreign (California) organization in the State of Illinois, its principal place of business;
4. When a foreign (California) organization is not properly registered in the State of Illinois, it does not have the authority to conduct business (including perhaps, overseeing and issuing board certifications);
5. The Illinois Secretary of State lists a number of iaedp chapters as being dissolved or not in good standing;
6. As a result of the lawsuit being filed, iaedp removed the requirements of symposium attendance and association membership in order to acquire or maintain board certification. This happened only after the lawsuit was filed and was one of the key issues in the case;
7. Some person, presumably Mr. Harken, forged the signatures of Dr. Jahraus and Ms. Cabrera on corporate documents submitted to the Illinois Secretary of State;
8. Presumably in order to attempt to avoid paying taxes not just to the State of California but the IRS, Ms. Harken classified herself, or at times, her non-existent corporation as an independent contractor;
9. The California Franchise Tax Board assessed and is collecting significant back taxes, penalties and interest from iaedp;
10. Even though there is a legion of documents, including Ms. Harken’s prior sworn declaration that Ms. Harken was an independent contractor, last month Ms. Harken filed a motion with the Court stating that she was an employee of iaedp. The significance of misleading the Court on this issue was to attempt to avoid liability under the racketeering laws;
11. As a result of Ms. Harken’s false statement about being an “employee,” Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions asking the Court to assess sanctions against Ms. Harken.

There are many other facts supporting Plaintiffs’ right to recovery in the lawsuit. However, perhaps the most significant issue may be that since iaedp was not in good standing in either California or Illinois for significant periods of time, did iaedp have the legal authority to oversee and issue board certifications during those times? That is, if you were issued your board certification when iaedp was not in good standing, is your certification valid? Is your certification basically a worthless piece of paper? And if not, what are the ramifications? Those will be questions for the Court to decide.

In litigation as in war, you achieve victory by engaging in a relentless, well-orchestrated and carefully designed plan to obtain victory and deprive your opponent of the initiative. You make your opponent pay a price higher than it expected for choosing the path of war. In litigation, an attorney has the power of the legal system. Issuing subpoenas for relevant documents not just from the named parties but also from third parties and witnesses. Deposing people who may have information of relevant facts. Uncovering lies. Exposing arrogance, greed and collusion. Discovering facts which support long held suppositions. Hundreds of hours spent on the process. The uncertainty.  The unexpected.

If iaedp prevails in the lawsuit, it will attempt to continue its existence the best it can. Or if and when the plaintiffs prevail, and a judgment especially on a class wide basis is entered, many certified professionals will be eligible to receive some type of monetary compensation. However, iaedp may not have the financial resources or enough insurance in place to satisfy a large judgment. This will inevitably result in iaedp failing or declaring bankruptcy and the certification program either being adopted by another organization or falling altogether.

In any event, the eating disorder community is at a crossroads. We can only hope that the community finally comes together and proceeds in a direction that is designed to bring collaboration, wisdom and insight. We can only hope.