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!

Octomom & Angels In Waiting: The Update

On March 9, 2009, Nadya Suleman and Angels in Waiting USA (AIW) agreed to work together.  Both parties signed the Declaration of Principles, developed to protect Nadya’s babies and other children.  Nadya also agreed to the principle of transparency.

Nadya has violated a number of those principles. 

In one of the Declaration’s principles, I stated that the best interests of Nadya’s children—who are, after all, high-risk, premature babies—should, at all times, be the paramount consideration with respect to all decisions made concerning their health, safety and welfare. 

Nadya announced to the public and the media when the first babies were coming home. As a result, a foreseeable frenzy of media and onlookers came to her home.  At one point, Linda West-Conforti—a registered nurse and founder of AIW—tried to rescue one of the babies in the garage and remove the infant after paparazzi swarmed the car. A loud noise that sounded like a gunshot went off.  Instead of being permitted to rescue the infant and being thanked for putting herself in peril, West-Conforti was told to “get out of the shot.”

    Not only did this chaotic situation endanger the babies outside the home, but Nadya and her attorney also permitted a dangerous, unhealthy environment inside.  Nadya let the news media set up dirty camera and light equipment, electrical cords and audio equipment inside the very small nursery.  The babies’ nurse had sanitized the room for the babies, but the reporters, producers, cameramen, audio personnel and others changed the nursery immediately and for the worse. 

    The loud noises and shouting increased the babies’ risk of harm, both emotionally and physically. So did the decision to have on-air talent hold and feed the babies. Nadya’s other children were permitted to touch the new babies without sanitizing their hands. Many of the numerous other people allowed into the nursery had not sanitized themselves, either. When one infant regurgitated some milk and needed suctioning, a nurse was temporarily blocked from assisting the infant to prevent the taping from being interrupted.

    Jeff Czech, Nadya’s attorney, made the situation worse.  He entered the house like a raging bull—screaming, pointing and waving his finger about one inch from the face of AIW’s nanny and myself.  He yelled obscenities at the nanny, stating “get the f— out of here, you are fired.”  He then hit his hand hard against the nursery’s outer wall.  This violent  atmosphere and loud noise had a negative impact on the babies, who had just come from a quiet hospital. 

    The violence and threats of violence deeply troubled the AIW personnel.  One of the AIW representatives was crying.  As for myself, I told Jeff not to touch me. Linda told him that she would “deck him” if he did.

    Nadya is responsible for the dangerous environment, which she permitted and even encouraged by allowing the media inside.  She appeared to treat the babies as props.  Nadya handed them off to the nurse to care for them, while she slept all night.

    The nurses were concerned about (among other things) Nadya’s minimal involvement or even apparent disinterest in the babies unless cameras were rolling.  For example, AIW spent 102 hours in the Suleman home. Out of this time, Nadya spent only eight hours in the nursery. Much of the time, she was out shopping. When she returned, she often did not stop to see the babies or inquire about how they were doing.  AIW personnel encouraged her to feed, hold, change and bathe the babies herself, but she rarely did.  One baby went for days without being bathed.  Finally, the nurse did it when Nadya continued to give excuses as to why she could not.

    Nadya did not provide security for the babies. After March 17, two intruders entered the property.  Even though Linda and I asked for security measures, Nadya never provided appropriate security for the babies, nannies and nurses.  In addition, AIW had a major concern about the nannies that Nadya had obtained to care for the babies.

    Finally, I asked Jeff to arrange for a meeting among AIW, Nadya, Jeff, myself and Dr. Phil McGraw to address our concerns about the babies.  Jeff never agreed to such a meeting.  Instead, he kept insisting that AIW agree to a non-disclosure clause and non- transparency.  He also insisted that I was not permitted to speak to Nadya about our concerns or about anything else.

    On Sunday morning, March 22, I sent an e-mail to Dr. Phil, stating that under the circumstances we could not continue working with Nadya.  On Sunday afternoon, Jeff sent an e-mail terminating AIW.

    The law requires AIW to file a complaint with Child Protective Services if AIW personnel believe that babies or children are endangered. AIW did so, and Nadya knew about the complaint.  We believe that the complaint may have been the reason why she and her attorney terminated AIW.

    We are now concerned about the children’s future.  Nadya has decided to have Kaiser Permanente care for her babies.  In other words, she has apparently made a conscious decision to put the burden of her babies’ care on the taxpayers.  (Jeff has conceded publicly that Kaiser nurses will most likely have to bill Medi-Cal.) 

    No doubt Jeff and Nadya will stop Kaiser’s nurses and doctors from speaking publicly about the care that Nadya gives her babies or fails to give them.  The public will learn only Nadya’s side and will not get all of the facts.

    What are Nadya and Jeff trying to hide and why?

    Our concern is the babies.  If the past week is a predictor of the future, we are not optimistic.

    We wish the best for Nadya and her babies, but we can now only pray that Nadya’s poor choices will not result in irreparable harm to her children.

GLORIA ALLRED

Triumphant in recent landmark wins and appeals, Allred talks shop about what her success means for women and gay rights.