Posted on 08/29/2002 4:02:37 AM PDT by scouse
NEW YORK - A Filipina who claims she was locked up for two years while slaving away for US6¢ an hour and dinner scraps is suing her U.S. employers using 19th-century laws that ban slavery.
Elma Manliguez says in a lawsuit against Martin Joseph and his wife, Somanti, that she could not escape during the two years she worked for them in Queens because they kept her locked up.
The Josephs counter that Ms. Manliguez is an ungrateful employee with a lively imagination. Their lawyer says she launched the suit to enable her to remain in the United States and extract money from Mr. Joseph, a banking executive at Merrill Lynch.
But when the couple asked U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis to dismiss the lawsuit against them, he not only ruled it should proceed, but said Ms. Manliguez could base her claim for unspecified damages on 19th-century laws outlawing slavery.
"These allegations describe acts of barbarism and unrelenting mental brutality reminiscent of the Gulag memorialized by Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his novel entitled One Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovitch," the judge wrote in a decision released last week.
The judge's ruling means Ms. Manliguez "will have her day in court," Ranjana Natarajan, the woman's lawyer, said yesterday.
The suit alleges the Josephs forced Ms. Manliguez to clean, cook and care for the couple and their three children daily, and was never given time off.
She was given only the "oldest leftover food," which she had to eat while "on the kitchen floor or on the washing machine."
The suit also charges the Josephs "humiliated and mistreated" Ms. Manliguez, even refusing to allow her to sit on the living room couch.
The telephone was hidden from her and she exited the home only when escorted to prevent her from escaping or talking to anyone, the suit adds.
Ms. Manliguez says she eventually escaped in October, 2000, after spotting a set of house keys left behind by Mrs. Joseph.
Andrew Campanelli, who represents the Josephs, tells a very different story, saying she left after arranging to be employed as a maid elsewhere.
He also said her departure was followed by anonymous demands for large sums of money which, if not met, would lead to "horrendous allegations being disseminated in the press."
A demand for US$200,000 made by phone was followed by a typed demand for US$400,000, he said.
However, no money was paid, and no evidence has emerged linking Ms. Manliguez to the demands.
Mr. Campanelli said the Josephs filed a criminal complaint against Ms. Manliguez immediately after her departure, accusing her of endangering the life of a child and of committing grand larceny.
"At the time she left, she was babysitting my client's two-and-a-half-year-old daughter," he said. "My client came home to find her daughter alone. [Ms. Manliguez had] walked out ... taking six suitcases full of her personal belongings as well as, allegedly, some of my client's gold jewellery."
He dismissed accusations that the Josephs starved and mistreated Ms. Manliguez by saying they would produce photos showing her smiling and happy with them in New York.
"You can also see that she put on weight," he said. "Photos don't lie."
Mr. Campanelli plans to file an answer to Ms. Manliguez's charges with the District Court next week. He said he was contacting neighbours of the Josephs who, he had heard, have said Ms. Manliguez was often seen alone outside the home.
In making his ruling last week, Judge Garaufis referred to a federal statute enacted shortly after the passage of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in 1865 that allows private parties to sue for involuntary servitude.
This led him to throw out Mr. Campanelli's motion to dismiss the case because it had been filed after the one-year statute of limitation for false imprisonment.
The Josephs hired Ms. Manliguez, 41, while they were living in Malaysia in 1997 through an agency based in the Philippines.
Ms. Manliguez's suit alleges the Josephs "deceived and coerced her into coming to the United States," telling her it was only for a holiday.
The Filipino Workers Centre in Manhattan and New York University's Immigrant Rights Clinic helped Ms. Manliguez launch her lawsuit.
"This case is a common situation, not just in New York, but across the country," said Gary Labao, of the Workers Centre. "It happens to many workers, but not everyone has the strength or the courage to come forward."
Does anyone know where to buy an inside keyed lock as implied here?
Maybe the house is a century old and it was a skeleton key?
All the windows were locked from the outside too?
Sure a lot of questions here.
Also, many urban homes have locking grilles or bars on windows for security reasons.
While I too have questions about this filing, the reasons you have advanced do not constitute grounds for disbelief. :-)
Sursum Corda
Who would you believe...an ignorant maid or a banking executive from Merrill-Lynch?
I don't know. It is a tough call!
These sound like the normal duties of a maid, but if it's true that she was never given any time off, was physically restrained from leaving, and was compensated at a rate of 6 cents per hour, this isn't employment, it's indentured servitude pure and simple, which is a form of slavery.
She was given only the "oldest leftover food," which she had to eat while "on the kitchen floor or on the washing machine." The suit also charges the Josephs "humiliated and mistreated" Ms. Manliguez, even refusing to allow her to sit on the living room couch.
Crappy treatment, but no crime here, just extenuating circumstances that aggravate the situation.
The Josephs hired Ms. Manliguez, 41, while they were living in Malaysia in 1997 through an agency based in the Philippines. Ms. Manliguez's suit alleges the Josephs "deceived and coerced her into coming to the United States," telling her it was only for a holiday."
This sounds a lot like the way that indentured servants were "recruited" from Scotland, England and Ireland in the 18th century. Most people don't realize it, but between half and two-thirds of the Europeans who came to this country between the mid 1500s to 1750 or so came here this way. (They just aren't whining about reparations).
From what I read here, Ms. Manliguez's story seems to have a few holes in it and legitimate refutations of her arguments, but given a good lawyer and a sympathetic jury, I don't think it should be too hard to prove that she was subjected to a conditions which made her an indentured servant.
Interesting case though, in light of the clamoring for "slave reparations"... an actual case of involuntary servitude, with live parties on both sides... This will be a very interesting case. And since it's a civil case, the burden of proof is based on a preponderence of evidence, not "beyond reasonable doubt".
Lowes, Home Depot, Ace, Walmart, Kmart, Target
My, my - they deceived her into coming? Then I imagine nothing would make Ms Manliguez more happy than for the Josephs to buy her a ticket home on the first non-stop to Manila flight.
My former secretary works with a group of Chinese-American women who have as their Christian mission the freeing of these ladies.
Now, for an American to even get a Philipina maid? It will not happen! Visas are not issued to Philipinas to come here as maids except for foreign employers.
These folks probably have more than their fair share of problems coming from INS as well!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.