Patterico's Pontifications

10/4/2010

Tim Rutten: Whitman’s Firing of Illegal Maid An “Odd Way to Treat” Her

Filed under: Dog Trainer,Immigration — Patterico @ 11:18 pm



Tim Rutten writes another column that leaves the reader screaming in frustration:

What really ought to concern people most are Diaz Santillan’s allegations that during the nine years she worked for Whitman and her husband, they repeatedly forced her to put in more than her agreed-upon hours without compensation and refused to pay her mileage even though she had to use her own car to perform household errands. Whitman denies all this, but she does agree that she fired Diaz Santillan within days of the June 2009 conversation in which the housekeeper asked for help in legalizing her status. That may not be labor code-style mistreatment, but it’s an odd way to treat somebody who’d worked in your home and taken care of your children for nearly a decade and who Whitman herself describes as “a member of our extended family.”

What in the hell are you talking about, Rutten?

Firing the maid after she said she was illegal was “an odd way to treat” her? When it was Whitman’s only option under the law??

Not to mention that the maid gave her phony documentation and had been lying to her for years?

Seems to me that’s an “odd way to treat” your employer.

But no: to Rutten, lying and committing felonies is perfectly normal, whereas firing an illegal worker as you’re required to is “odd.”

What could better illustrate the utter insanity of the liberals at this rag?

52 Responses to “Tim Rutten: Whitman’s Firing of Illegal Maid An “Odd Way to Treat” Her”

  1. I’m confused, Diaz was being so mistreated by Whitman she kept working there for nine years instead of finding a job elsewhere? Play that one again slowly.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  2. What could better illustrate the utter insanity of the liberals at this rag?

    The fact that Rutten stil has a job there?

    Mike G in Corvallis (fd5fcd)

  3. My soon-to-be-former brother in law, father to my delightful nephew, was recently shown to have been lying to us on an elemental level for the past 8+ years.

    Are we supposed to excuse him bouncing my sister off walls because when we didn’t know he was a lying, criminal scumbag– not that he’ll ever be punished, since she left before he sent her to the hospital– we considered him family?

    Trusting those who betray you somehow makes their betrayal LESS? Bah.

    Foxfier (24dddb)

  4. The utter hypocrisy of the left is stunning for, if nothing else, being completely devoid of humility or shame. Just days after playing the ‘Meg should have known she was illegal’ card, they switch to the ‘Meg is a monster that treated her like crap’ meme. This is in response to the fact-checkers pointing out the $23 per hour pay rate. That little fact dampened the impact of their original allegations; therefore, voila! allegations of employer misconduct.

    Icy Texan (d999b8)

  5. I’m just gonna say this here: I would kill to make $23 an hour being a housekeeper. Maybe that’s what you normally pay a housekeeper in California, but DAG! That’s slightly above minimum wage.

    I’d be damned thrilled to do so. I’ve expected at every single job I’ve ever had that extra unpaid hours are part of the deal. I’ve also made over time. I’ve always used my own car to accomplish tasks and not always gotten mileage.

    Though, I’ve never been UNION. Perhaps that has something to do with the outrage.

    Oddly, now I think about it, that also has something to do with how horrific our economy is right now…Detroit anyone?

    Vivian Louise (c7cad6)

  6. So Whitman was wrong for NOT firing her in 2003 AND for firing her in 2009? And she shoulld have fired her when the Federal Government stated she had no basis to but should not have fired her when she was legally required to?

    And is anyone thinking about the ramifications of this entire attack beyond November 2? The only way Whitman could have avoided this cunundrum would be if she had engaged in racial profling in selecting her maid. Is that really what the idiots who are beating the drum on this issue really want to encourage in the future?

    Sean P (a82c1f)

  7. If you expect logic out of Rutten, you haven’t been paying attention, His review of “Obama’s Wars” which surfaced in my local fishwrap, is equally
    muddled

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  8. Rutten apparently didn’t read up. whitman fired her almost a week later after consulting with a lawyer, to figure out if she could legalize her status. i can tell you, basically she couldn’t. The lawyer assuredly told her that, and that was that.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  9. btw, at another thread i found evidence that someone is putting out sexist, homophobic, lying anti-whitman comment spam. i turned it into a post at my blog, here: http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/10/is-this-paid-for-sexism-homophobic.html

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  10. Aaron,
    Rutten apparently didn’t read up. whitman fired her almost a week later after consulting with a lawyer, to figure out if she could legalize her status. i can tell you, basically she couldn’t.

    In that case, Whitman obviously had no choice. would you provide a link?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  11. I’d like to see some action against Gloria Allred for selling out her client to benefit Jerry Brown. Doesn’t the STate of California require the attorney to put the interests of his or her client first?

    Rochf (ae9c58)

  12. What could better illustrate the utter insanity of the liberals at this rag?

    Well, there’s today’s editorial which accepts that Whitman’s actions were all pretty much forced, but faults her anyway for being a hypocrite.

    Apparently she should have turned the maid into the authorities. Like Brown’s tool Allred did (and the authorities did nothing).

    Now, how come Brown isn’t a hypocrite for outing the maid to the authorities when he’s in favor of illegal immigration?

    Kevin Murphy (298030)

  13. What could better illustrate the utter insanity of the liberals at this rag?

    That statement is three words too long.

    S’all I’m sayin’.

    IgotBupkis (9eeb86)

  14. Well, there’s today’s editorial which accepts that Whitman’s actions were all pretty much forced, but faults her anyway for being a hypocrite.

    How is she a hypocrite?

    Michael Ejercito (249c90)

  15. Brother

    Not sure what you are looking for a citation on. if you mean that she was going to a lawyer, with the intent to find a way to legalize her, that’s been all over this blog.

    As for the claim that there was no way to make her legal, I admit I am going on my own expertise. My company brings in nurses from another country all the time. the owner is herself an immigrant made citizen and she likes helping people from the mother country to come here.

    There is no way for anyone to make a person who came her illegally a legal resident, except if they went back to their country and pretended they never came here at all. Congress would have to pass a law. And indeed the process of bringing in people legally from other countries is pretty hopelessly clogged up, too.

    So in the end, you are just getting the word of a guy you don’t know on the internet. You can take that for what it is worth.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  16. Aaron,
    I meant just a link to some news article explaining that Whitman went to an attorney. There have been so many comments I have difficulty keeping up, so if there was a link, I missed it. The lively discussion is a credit to this blog, but it’s easy for me to miss stuff.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc)

  17. Aaron,
    BTW, you can just call me Bradley. The “Brother” part is a joking reference to my membership in this religious order.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc)

  18. I’m with Vivian. That’s a good wage. I know law school grads who would take that job.

    Allred’s complaint that she had to drive her own freaking car is just something else. I had to run errands in my car all the time in every job I’ve ever had.

    Beyond that, I love Tim Rutten for coming out and saying it: they are bashing Meg for employing someone that they would have employed, knowing the scandalous issue Meg didn’t know. They think by attacking her on both firing and hiring fronts, they can convince more people she’s a hypocrite (hypocrite = any Republican who isn’t clairvoyant).

    Of course, this is ironic.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  19. Bradley this piece while totally hostile to Whitman, quotes the maid as saying that Whitman consulted her attorney and was told she could do nothing for her. One tiny golden nugget in a pile of horse dung.

    Mike K (568408)

  20. mike k.

    thanks for answering that for me. i really didn’t have time to look it up.

    Dustin

    i do think cali demands a separate mileage reimbursement.

    But otherwise, even if she worked the woman up to 30 hrs, but paid her only 15, that is still more than the national minimum wage.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  21. Mike K.,
    Thank you. Whitman’s having consulted an attorney to see what she could do isn’t exactly treating Diaz Santillan like a piece of garbage.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc)

  22. i do think cali demands a separate mileage reimbursement.

    That may be the case. It sounds like California to me, where I’ve never worked.

    However, this does not equal abuse. This equals something a lot of people accept as part of their jobs, particularly if they are paid well. I probably am making a mistake to assume there’s any validity to the claim. Did Meg deny this? If so, Allred may have fed the lie to her ‘client’. What does she care if it can’t be proven in court? I’ve rarely seen a lawyer present a story incorrectly so readily (I know many puff or skew, but this is beyond).

    Oh, and I wouldn’t pay someone mileage if they didn’t have a valid driver’s license.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  23. I wonder if Rutten will write about Brown’s mojito-fueled conversations with Fidel.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc)

  24. dustin

    hate to keep quibbling with you but i don’t believe her driver’s license was false. it just didn’t have a proof of legal presence requirement back when she got it. but i could be wrong about it.

    But real license or not, its not abuse. at worst she owed her a little back pay.

    And as more than a few people pointed out, all the horrible things she was expected to do for them, was in the initial job description.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  25. I don’t mind the quibbling.

    I was actually attempting a joke, there. I guess part of my issue is that I do not have help in my home, dealing with kids or family, trusted with my possessions. Nicki owes Meg a full refund of 9 years x 50 weeks x 15 hours x $23. She was a complete fraud and the idea that Meg owes her a little extra on top of what was already conned out of her is rich indeed.

    And we don’t even know if these claims are accurate, anyway (why would they be?).

    Bradley has noted that suing these people will increase exposure to investigating defendants. OK. They should do it anyway, IMO. Win or lose.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  26. Dustin

    well, bluntly, the problem with suing the maid is more basic: you can’t get blood from a stone. the chances they will be able to recover anything from the maid is about slim and none, because she probably has nothing to take, and even if she did, she could probably disappear pretty easily.

    if i was to sue anyone, it would be gloria allred. she has, as us lawyers say, deep pockets. yes, obviously there is a danger of letting that woman go through discovery. But if whitman and her husband maintain that whitman never knew her husband got the letter, then calling whitman a liar on national TV would be defamation and it would probably meet the NYT v. Sullivan requirement of malice.

    (for those who don’t know–and i think dustin does know this–when you are a public figure you can only recover for defamation if you can show “malice” which means either allred knew it was untrue, or showed a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of what she was saying.)

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  27. “What in the hell are you talking about, Rutten?

    Firing the maid after she said she was illegal was “an odd way to treat” her? When it was Whitman’s only option under the law??

    Not to mention that the maid gave her phony documentation and had been lying to her for years?

    Seems to me that’s an “odd way to treat” your employer.

    But no: to Rutten, lying and committing felonies is perfectly normal, whereas firing an illegal worker as you’re required to is “odd.”

    What could better illustrate the utter insanity of the liberals at this rag?”

    In an effort to determine who is the ultimate idiot as exemplified by Rutten is it Rutten for writting this bit of idiocy, the editor who blessed it, the publisher for hiring and employing the writer and the editor responsible for publishing this bit of idiocy, the subscriber for subscribing to a rag that employes such idiots and reads the published idiocies or the advertiser that advertises in a rag that has articles and columns written by and edited by idiots to be read by idiots and therefore by inference must believe only an idiot would buy their product or service or the shareholders, bond holders and general creditors for putting their’s and other people’s money in to this bottomless pit of stupidity?

    cubanbob (409ac2)

  28. Yes, Nicki’s tort proof. Not that I think Meg needs the money.

    She was defrauded by Nicki and then Allred smeared her. The people who are behind this stunt will do it again and again, from election to election, because they get away with it.

    Allred’s interviews appear to satisfy the Sullivan requirements. Hewitt’s in particular has Allred noting she doesn’t know the law, while saying she was showing the law was broken. She was worse than disregarding the truth, to state the SSA letter said the opposite of what it did about Nicki’s citizenship.

    Allred losing a case of this nature would speak loudly about this stunt. She abuses the legal system with threats and lies, to skew elections.

    I think the real issue is if Meg can withstand the scrutiny of pre-trial examinations and investigations. I also think Nicki would fold, quickly, and hopefully that could be helpful in understanding the full scheme. Or she could flee… nothing lost.

    At some point, someone has to go ahead and take these folks to court. I think a lot of the democrat planning here assumes that won’t happen, and wonder how Allred would react if she realized she was wrong (that may be one way to shut down the next phase of the smear).

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  29. Dustin

    You got me thinking, and yeah, i think suing them both would be a great idea.

    First, i would have to check the california rules. but if both the maid and allred were being sued, i don’t think allred could continue to represent the maid. And while she is judgment proof, i.e. she probably doesn’t have the money, it is very common for judgment proof defendants to fail to understand what that means. the threat of owing thousands of dollars might be enough to make the maid flip… on allred. maybe even on whoever is pulling the strings if there are any.

    And yes, allred deserves a good metaphorical black eye over this.

    i like this idea more and more the more we talk about it. but the acid test is just what you said: whether whitman thinks she can withstand the scrutiny of discovery.

    Whitman can certainly afford to do this, even if she comes out with a net loss. and allred is probably rich enough that she could get a considerable payday out of it. And maybe it will teach the fame whore a lesson.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  30. For any CA lawyer reading this blog, does Allred’s conduct merit a bar association complaint? And if so, what would the appropriate disciplinary action be? Now that the maid has been exposed as an illegal alien, does ICE have an obligation to deal with her?

    cubanbob (409ac2)

  31. Dustin

    And of course Daniel Webster should sue Alan Grayson.

    i kind of said that it was defamation here, but didn’t at that time conclude he should sue. http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/09/devil-and-daniel-webster.html

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  32. cuban

    i would guess that ICE doesn’t have to deal with her, given that they could drive right in front of my work and catch about 50 illegal immigrants easily and yet they don’t.

    i think the essential problem in filing a complaint against her, is that the answer they could give is “the maid doesn’t care if she is deported. she hates whitman enough to do it anyway.” And really as a lawyer, that really isn’t outside of the realm of possibility. i have long said that in law school you are taught that it is always about money; but when you get out in the real world, its almost NEVER about money. its always: this person wronged me and i want to teach them a lesson (and bear in mind, the wrong is frequently bogus).

    now what is dangerous and might lead us to a bar complaint is later the maid might decide she was used and turn on her lawyer. it is a little dangerous for allred to take someone with a ridiculous sense of entitlement on as a client, because her ridiculous sense of entitlement might be turned against allred next.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  33. I had an exchange with George Skelton this morning by e-mail on his column calling Whitman a “hypocrite” because she wants employer sanctions but had an illegal blah, blah, blah.

    They really don’t get it or they are lying. I wrote Skelton that he was for open borders but wouldn’t admit it. He denied it. There are plenty of hypocrites to go around.

    I fear that California is crazy enough to elect Jerry Brown again. God help us.

    Mike K (568408)

  34. mike you should post the exchange. it might be interesting.

    Aaron Worthing (b1db52)

  35. Definitely $23.00 an hour is a good wage for housekeeping. The going rate here is $10.00.

    As for Tim Rutten, did we expect otherwise from him?

    PatAZ (9d1bb3)

  36. “i think the essential problem in filing a complaint against her, is that the answer they could give is “the maid doesn’t care if she is deported. she hates whitman enough to do it anyway.” And really as a lawyer, that really isn’t outside of the realm of possibility. i have long said that in law school you are taught that it is always about money; but when you get out in the real world, its almost NEVER about money. its always: this person wronged me and i want to teach them a lesson (and bear in mind, the wrong is frequently bogus).

    now what is dangerous and might lead us to a bar complaint is later the maid might decide she was used and turn on her lawyer. it is a little dangerous for allred to take someone with a ridiculous sense of entitlement on as a client, because her ridiculous sense of entitlement might be turned against allred next.”

    Aron notwithstanding the maid’s outrage isn’t an attorney as an officer of the court and in accordance to cannon of ethics not supposed to act against the best interest of her client even if the client doesn’t understand or care that by doing so the attorney would be harming the client ( and in addition exposing the attorney to liability)? How can Allred claim with any shred of credibility that she has somehow aided her client in anyway that would lead to any form of compensation to her client? She has certainly exposed to her to a risk of deportation and certainly no one in their right mind risk would hiring the maid ever again. So how can Allred defend herself from the charge of not acting against her client’s best interest?

    cubanbob (409ac2)

  37. cubanbob

    that is good question. i looked over cali’s rules and they don’t appear to say anything directly about an ethical duty to act in client’s best interests. And this is what virginia, my state, says on the subject:

    > A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation, subject to paragraphs (b), (c), and (d), and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decision, after consultation with the lawyer, whether to accept an offer of settlement of a matter. In a criminal case, the lawyer shall abide by the client’s decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial and whether the client will testify.

    So the Virginia view is kind of the opposite. you have a duty to tell your client what you think, but if the client wants to commit hari kari you are generally commanded to follow. now there are limitations on that, such as that you are not to advise a client to break the law. but as a rule of thumb you are supposed to really let the client decide what he or she wants. but that is virginia. maybe cali has ethics decisions that says otherwise.

    i mean it wouldn’t shock me if the people’s republic of california was less libertarian on the matter.

    And the reality is that “best interests of the client” really does strike me as a debatable proposition. i mean take the Little Rock Desegregation cases. before they had full desegregation, you had the little rock 9. 9 kids who were basically pinatas for the white schools. as bad as the all black schools were back then, you might suppose that those 9 children still would have learned more in those schools and certainly suffered less abuse. so if you were their lawyer, would you say it is in their best interest to not be one of the nine? But obviously there was a greater issue there, and someone had to stand up and do it. a lawyer has a duty to make sure they go in with open eyes–that is how you best respect the intelligence and autonomy of the client. but after you have done that, the decision is theirs.

    now of course this maid is not being half so noble. but in her mind i suppose she thinks she is.

    of course the other problem is that you think that maybe, just maybe, the fame whore allred is letting her desire for fame override everything and she is pushing her client in that direction. i suspect that is the case. but you can’t file a complain based on just a suspicion.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  38. “… maybe cali has ethics decisions that says otherwise…”

    //snark alert//

    “Cali” has ethics? Who knew?

    If we out here had ethics, the state wouldn’t be upside down politically, philosophically, fiscally, and every other way from Thursday.

    AD-RtR/OS! (adf61c)

  39. Ad

    well, okay, i mean the california bar, which regulates the legal profession.

    ah, crap same problem. let’s face it, i am pretty sure patterico is the only ethical lawyer in california. 😉

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  40. Aaron, do you really mean that?
    After all, he is a prosecutor!

    AD-RtR/OS! (adf61c)

  41. Aaron I am not a lawyer so i defer on the cannon of ethics matter to you. Nevertheless I find it odd that cannon of ethics would permit a lawyer to aid in her clients efforts to commit financial suicide. Would not the ethical course of action be to say no to the client and walk away?

    In the Little Rock 9 example you mentioned, that would be a hard one for a lawyer to advise the client. It came down to forgoing a civil right to avoid suffering or accept the suffering to ultimately gain one’s civil right. That is certainly a very difficult moral and ethical proposition for the lawyer with respect to the client. However with the maid and Allred what great moral dilemma is there? An illegal alien by definition has no right to be here (except under some very unusual circumstances like fearing for her life if deported or being a political refugee). So unless the maid can make such a claim, Allred has put her client at risk for deportation, theoretically for felonious activities (fraudulent use of a social security number, the acquisition of the driver’s license among others) and rendering her unemployable.

    Can Allred produce an affidavit from here client stating that Allred explained all of this to her but the client still insisted on going forward with his? If not then then would it not be incumbent of the bar association to look in to this now that it has been so publicly displayed?

    cubanbob (409ac2)

  42. She should sue Nicki for slander and libel ;-), or that is proof of the validity of Nicki’s claims.

    JD (a61253)

  43. Has anyone looked into Santillan’s voter registration, and how often she voted yet?

    malclave (1db6c5)

  44. cuban but you are missing my point in the little rock 9 example. the material benefits to the 9 were probably none–they would have been materially better off going to the all black school.

    But they believed in something. and if i was their lawyer, i would let them know what they were in for, and if they were still willing, pray it goes well.

    Now this lying little maid is not so noble, but i am sure in her and gloria’s eyes she is. the cause for her might be to defeat whitman politically, so she rues the day she ever messed with her (i am not saying whitman did her wrong, just that the maid believes this to be the case). so allred has that fig leaf to hide behind.

    I have exactly the same concerns, but unless the maid says, “i didn’t want to pursue it but allred kept pushing and pushing,” or something like that, i don’t see the ethical violation.

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  45. Aaron’s probably right. Allred is probably smart enough to have some kind of record explaining that she would disclose things that would have negative legal effect (or exposure to such effects), and Nicki was agreeing to this in order to further some purpose (screwing with Meg, of course).

    Did Nicki really understand that? Who knows. She’s a con artist, so I don’t necessarily think she’s unintelligent. But the think about helping someone stab someone in the back is that you have to watch your back.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  46. Aaron’s probably right. Allred is probably smart enough to have some kind of record explaining that she would disclose things that would have negative legal effect (or exposure to such effects), and Nicki was agreeing to this in order to further some purpose (screwing with Meg, of course).

    Would she be able to use that record without violating attorney-client privilege?

    The conventional viewpoint says we need a jobs program and we need to cut welfare. Just the opposite! We need more welfare and fewer jobs.

    – Jerry Brown

    Michael Ejercito (249c90)

  47. Michael, I am already just using my imagination about such a record’s existence. However, it is very easy to prevent such privilege from attaching to just about anything. For example, just have a third party (outside the privileged relationship) in the room.

    but to be honest, I have no idea how Allred would handle this kind of issue. It seems clear to me she is not operating under the notion of helping her client. If she wanted to keep something from being privileged, it’s possible, but now we’re really testing her ethical boundaries.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  48. michael

    when you are charged with an ethical violation in respect to your representation of a client, you may pierce privilege in order to defend yourself.

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  49. Oh, look who knows what they’re talking about. Aren’t you smart?

    (j/k).

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  50. Dustin

    joking aside, i will say that i agree that allred is the driver, here. but unfortunately i don’t think this is something an ethics committee can deal with. in the end its up to people to have enough brains to realize that not everyone has your best interest at heart.

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  51. Can a lawyer ethically expose their client to criminal charges in furtherance of a civil case? That’s news to me.

    XBradTC (3d2322)

  52. Can a lawyer ethically expose their client to criminal charges in furtherance of a civil case? That’s news to me.

    As long as the lawyer informs the client of such, and the client agreed to be exposed.

    Michael Ejercito (249c90)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0955 secs.