GLORIA ALLRED: Octomom, Prop 8 and Sexual Harassment

Petition Gets Filed To Protect The Interests Of  The Octuplets

We filed a Petition in Orange County Superior Court on behalf of my client former child actor Paul Petersen, the President of “A Minor Consideration” (AMC).  The petition asked the court to protect the financial interests and opportunities of Nadya Suleman’s octuplets by appointing a guardian over the estate of the infants.  We did not seek custody of the babies. We filed because Suleman (who has six other children) entered into contracts and received payments for photos/videos of her octuplets and is set for a show with the children produced by Eyeworks.  Suleman reportedly said, “It is going to be an ongoing thing and it will follow them from now until they are 18″.  “A Minor Consideration” has for years worked to protect  rights and interests of child performers  and won laws requiring that earnings of children of all ages be protected and not spent or wasted by parents/third parties,   so that when a child reaches legal age she/he can enjoy the fruits of their labor.  The octuplets monetary compensation comes from use of the babies images in print, TV and on the internet.  Our petition for the appointment of a guardian will ensure that the babies receive their share of payments under the contracts which have required their images be shown.  Payments under those contracts will be placed into separate accounts and preserved for them as required by law.  A guardian assures that the children’s’ compensation is fair and their money is segregated and supervised to safeguard the babies’ separate interests.

Female Correctional Employees Sue For Sexual Harassment

We filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility, in San Bernardino County on behalf of eight female employees who are or were Youth Correctional Counselors and Youth Correctional Officers.  The suit alleges that plaintiffs were victims of rampant sexual harassment by juvenile offenders.  Female employees were retaliated against when they reported sexual misconduct and alleged that the State failed to take prompt and remedial action required by law to prevent the harassment.  This is a disgusting case where female staff members of Stark were subjected to sexually offensive behavior by certain  juvenile wards such as masturbation, and exposing genitalia and/or ejaculating in front of them, using offensive, obscene and  derogatory language when a female staff member went to check on them.  Some juvenile wards threatened sexual assault and did in fact sexually assault female staff by grabbing the women’s buttocks or chests.  Other times female staff were “gassed” or “iced” meaning  juvenile wards threw liquids at them that potentially contained urine, feces, sperm or other liquids.  When female staff reported the sexual misconduct, no punishment was ever imposed on offenders holding them accountable.  In many incidents, cases were not even referred to the DA for prosecution.  Because juveniles were not held accountable the environment for the women became sexually hostile and dangerous.  If these same acts were committed in a public place, offenders would be arrested, prosecuted and if convicted, sentenced and required to register as sex offenders. Yet, when the same acts are committed in the open, in front of female staff or as an assault on female staff they are generally not prosecuted or offenders held accountable in any significant way.  No employee should be forced to work in a sexually hostile/ offensive work place like these female staff members must function in every day.  An employer has the duty under the law “to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring” and if it did not it is liable.  Because the government failed to protect them, some of our clients have suffered extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress as well as other damages including medical expenses.  We are proud of our clients and the courage that they have displayed by filing this lawsuit.  They have done so not only to assert and vindicate their own rights but also to protect their co-workers and the community.  We look forward to a successful result.

New Developments in PROP 8

On May 26th, 2009, the California Supreme Court validated the constitutionality of Prop 8. permitting a majority of the electorate to deny to gay and lesbian couples what had previously been determined as a fundamental constitutional right– the right to marry.  In the same way that marriage is for better or for worse some decisions of our Supreme Court are better, but this one is for the worse. We are dismayed and shocked.  The idea that California law would permit a 50% +1 vote to deprive a minority group of its constitutional protections and that our Supreme Court deferred to the majority will of the electorate is we believe contrary to the constitutional foundational principles upon which our California and United States Constitution are founded.  We are pleased the court upheld thousands of marriages that took place between June 16,  2008 and the passage of Prop 8 in November  2008 because the court agreed with our position in our brief and oral argument that Prop 8 should not be applied retroactively, but it’s a shame that ­other gay and lesbian couples are denied the fundamental right to marry that heterosexual couples enjoy.  We are educating the public to the necessity of restoring marriage equality.  We look forward to winning in the court of public opinion and in the ballot box as soon as an amendment supporting marriage equality is placed on the ballot. 

We shall overcome!