|
||||||||
  |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nanny fires back at employer she called abusive
By Steve Irsay
NEW YORK (Court TV) -- A nanny sued for leveling child abuse charges against her former employer is firing back with a $10 million suit of her own in an attempt to regain her once impressive reputation. Michelle Padilla is suing Manhattan mom Danica Cordell-Reeh for libel and slander based on public comments made by Cordell-Reeh and her attorney Bernard Clair. The mother and her lawyer claimed that Padilla was a former prostitute with a history of drug addiction, mental illness and false child abuse claims. According to court papers filed August 12, the allegations ruined the personal and professional life of a renowned caregiver who just two years ago was one of five Nanny of the Year nominees by the International Nanny Association.
Padilla's suit is the third installment in a drama involving a bitter custody dispute between Cordell-Reeh and her estranged investment banker husband, and a $20 million suit against Padilla and the British agency that placed her. The case, which has received local media attention, was the focus of a Sept. 23 cover story in New York Magazine. According to Cordell-Reeh's June 11 suit, she intended to fire Padilla after just two weeks of caring for Cordell-Reeh's 5-year-old twins. The nanny left of her own will, however, but went to Cordell-Reeh's ex-husband, Henry F. Owsley III, and told of abuses ranging from malnourishment to sexual molestation in a sworn affidavit. The affidavit was instrumental in Owsley's emergency change of custody application last October. But Cordell-Reeh claimed that Padilla invented the abuse charges. She and her ex-husband settled their dispute in July, and Cordell-Reeh regained unrestricted joint custody of the children. Now it is Padilla who is fighting to reclaim her reputation. Nice nanny or not?Padilla came to Cordell-Reeh by way of Nannies of St. James, a respected London agency that caters to a wealthy clientele. Her references were excellent, as were her personal and professional credentials: years of service to numerous families, a New York State Teacher's certificate and even a self-published book, "The Official Guide to Finding a Great Nanny and Keeping Her." But Cordell-Reeh's lawsuit described Padilla as a troubled woman with a "prior history of lies, deceit and mental illness" who forged a reference from an employer referred to as Christopher R. and told therapists that she had been an anorexic prostitute who was sexually abused by her older brother. "Not only is she none of those, but she is a renowned nanny with stellar references," said David Brickman, lawyer for the 39-year-old nanny. "It does not get much worse than this without a physical injury." Padilla, who has refused to speak publicly about the case, fired back for the first time in her answer to the complaint and countersuit, filed together last month. According to the document, Padilla did receive counseling at New Hope Counseling Center in Queens, New York, but she only "consulted with a dream therapist for spiritual counseling and prayer" and was never diagnosed or treated by any psychologist, psychiatrist or medical doctor. Also, despite session notes from the center cited by Cordell-Reeh's lawsuit, Padilla never described herself as a former prostitute, the papers say. She did admit to being a former topless dancer and said she had once considered reentering the profession, according to Brickman. Padilla also contests the allegation that she forged letters of recommendation from Christopher R. According to Brickman, Christopher R. rated Padilla "excellent" or "good" in nearly all categories on recommendation forms from the Adele Poston Domestic Agency in 1995. Brickman claims to have matched the signature on the forms to the one on Christopher R.'s driver's license. While the original suit pins Cordell-Reeh's temporary loss of joint custody, as well as her resulting emotional suffering, squarely on Padilla's sworn affidavit to Owsley's lawyers, Brickman calls this scapegoating. "When Michelle arrived at Owsley's lawyer's office there were 20 other people giving affidavits," he said. "Child protective services did not remove those children based on Michelle's affidavit. It was Michelle's affidavit along with many others and it strikes me as odd that Michelle was the only one sued." Brickman also hopes to see the case against his client dismissed based on an issue if immunity. "What Cordell-Reeh is suing my client for is intentional infliction of emotional distress and it is based on things Michelle swore to in an affidavit," said Brickman. "The question is, can you sue someone based on what they say in an affidavit, and if the answer is no then the cause must lie elsewhere." Based on New York State domestic relations law, Padilla's affidavit is sealed to anyone but the parties in the suit and others with written consent. According to Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at New York University Law School, people have certain protections for statements made in affidavits. "The ordinary absolute immunity rule would protect [Padilla] against claims of defamation from those statements," he said. "Courts want to protect litigants because they want as full an airing of the facts as possible." Padilla's countersuit also accuses Cordell-Reeh and Clair of libel and slander for speaking publicly about the allegations through the news media. "Whatever comments have been made about Padilla are absolutely immune because, not only are they true, they represent fair comments about ongoing litigation," said Clair. This question is addressed by state law. "The lawyer can reveal anything he is not forbidden to reveal," said Gillers. "There are rules governing what a lawyer can say publicly about a litigation proceeding and those are meant to balance the interest in public discussion and the interest in an untainted trial." He acknowledged that in practice these rules are only enforced in some high-profile criminal cases where there is a fear of influencing the jury pool. Regardless of the outcome of these cases, Padilla's nanny career may be over. "She has walked down the street and had perfect strangers point their fingers at her," said Brickman. "Her career is destroyed; absolutely destroyed."
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
