In
SDNY Suit on Qatari Royals Not
Paying Overtime Echo of Pro
Public Ruling in SEC v Waldman
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Periscope
FEDERAL
COURTHOUSE, February 15 – The
sister of the ruler of Qatar
is being sued by at least
three employees who say they
were made to work six days a
week without being paid
overtime, and were retaliated
against. Inner City Press was
the only media present at the
initial pre trial conference
on the case in the U.S.
District Court for the
Southern District of New York
on February 14, and was
tempted to object when the
Qatari royal's lawyer from the
Proskauer law firm urged SDNY
Judge J. Paul Oetken for a
confidentiality order.
Now a
decision of Oetken's fellow
SDNY Judge Richard M. Berman
in SEC v Amir Waldman, et
al, (17-cv-2088) may
provide guidance to the Qatari
royals' lawyers at Proskauer
that there is a presumption of
public and press access to
documents in SDNY cases. In
his February 14 order,
involving children at least
peripherally as the Qatari
royals' lawyer tried to
invoke, Judge Berman quote of
"the presumption of open
access to documents filed in
our courts," quoting Geller
v. Branic Int'l Realty Corp.,
212 F.3d 734, 738 (2nd Cir.
2000). So how will this apply
in this case of the royals of
Qatar, a country already in
the news for treatment of
migrant laborers brought in to
build stadia for the upcoming
2022 World Cup?
Royals of a
gas-rich emirate that has
locked up poets for
criticizing them, seeking to
cover up their retaliation and
refusal to pay overtime? It
remains to be seen how much
will be covered up in the
case. The defendants are
Sheikha Al Mayassa bint Hamad
Al-Thani and Sheikh Jassim bin
Abdulaziz Al- Thani.
For now we can
report: the Proskauer firm on
February 14 not only opposed
any certification of the claim
to include other wronged
employees of the family, it
also proposed to sever the
three plaintiff from each
other. The plaintiffs' lawyer
argued that many of the Qatari
royals' employee are afraid to
join the lawsuit, absent a
noitce or invitation from the
court promising them
protection from retaliation,
because they are in the United
States on special visas which
only allow them to work for
this family, and they could
have to leave the country as
two of the plaintiffs have.
From the answer
to the Complaint: "Defendants
admit that Mr. Bancroft began
his employment in Doha, Qatar
and that he accompanied
Defendants when they moved to
New York, but otherwise deny
the allegations in
Paragraph 39 of the
Complaint. 40.
Defendants deny the
allegations in Paragraph 40 of
the Complaint. 41.
Defendants admit that Mr.
Bancroft accompanied
Defendants on their European
travels in various countries
during the summer of 2016, but
upon information and
belief, otherwise deny
the allegations in Paragraph
41 of the
Complaint.
42. Defendants admit that Mr.
Bancroft accompanied
Defendants on their trip to
Qatar in the summer of 2017,
but otherwise deny the
allegations in Paragraph 42 of
the Complaint. 43.
Defendants admit that Mr.
Bancroft accompanied
Defendants on their European
travels in various countries
during the summer of 2018, but
upon information and
belief, otherwise deny
the allegations in Paragraph
43 of the
Complaint.
44. Defendants admit that Mr.
Bancroft traveled with the
family to Miami and Boston."
This is the
life of royals and diplomats,
such like those at the UN.
This is the world of immunity
and now, it is urged,
confidentiality. Inner City
Press, now covering the SDNY
daily, will have more on this.
And on this:
before Norman Seabrook, former
head of the NYC Corrections
Officers union, was sentenced
on February 8 by the U.S.
District Court for the
Southern District of New York
to 58 months in prison, a
victim's statement to the
court cited what it called
Seabrook's racist rant on
YouTube.
Afterward on Worth Street
Inner City Press asked
Seabrook about the YouTube
video - actually, an audio
file with an array of still
photographs. Seabrook
told Inner City Press they
doctored it to make him look
bad. His (actual) answer on
Periscope here
- and here
now audio file on YouTube,
here.
In the
SDNY courtroom it was
cognitive dissonance: Norman
Seabrook who rose from poverty
to head of a union with 10,000
members, who endorsed Michael
Bloomberg; Norman Seabrook who
asked for tens of thousands of
dollars to steer union money
into a Cayman Islands hedge
fund which failed.
Prosecutor
Martin Bell referred to a
Ferragamo bag visible in
Seabrook's house for months.
When Seabrook spoke he said it
was a gift with cigars, taking
a cigar out of his suit
jacket.
Seabrook's lawyer
Paul Shechtman
cited
Seabrook's
work on the
so-called
feces bill to
make throwing
excrement at a
corrections
officer a
felony. On the
hand Seabrook
was accused of
threatening
his board
members with
returning to
work in a
prison as
punishment,
and of going
after anyone
who dared run
against or
otherwise
oppose him.
Seabrook felt
that it was
his time to
get paid, that
he was bigger
than the cause
he began
fighting for,
Bell said.
Shechtman also
spoke after the sentencing.
Inner City Press asked him
about Judge
Alvin K.
Hellerstein's
seeming
reversal of an initial
position that it would be hard
to leave Seabrook out on bail
pending appeal. Shechtman
replied affably that he had to
win something, after the 58
month sentence. Video here.
An issue
on a appeal will be whether
Seabrook's second jury should
have heard about the $19
million loss.
Inner City
Press asked Shechtman about
the restitution, how much
would be paid by hedge funders
Murray Huberfeld, Jona
Rechnitz and perhaps (Judge
Hellerstein
indicated)
Jeremy Reichberg. Shechtman
told Inner City Press, If
Norman wins $19 million in the
lottery, we'll have about
that. For now, $2500 is due in
60 days, through the SDNY
Clerk, for the union. We'll
have more on this.
Exiting the courthouse after
Seabrook, with a bag of Utz
potato chips and a copy of the
Daily News was New York Knicks
icon Charles Oakley. He said
that there are others who need
to be locked up as well, and
that the Knicks need better
players. There was no
rebuttal. Periscope video here.
Upcoming in the
SDNY is a recently-filed
complaint by the Bangladesh
Central Bank for the $81
million hacking of its funds,
which were then wired through
the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York, a case
that Inner City Press will
cover. Times change. Watch
this site.
***
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold
Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2019 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|
,
