IBJNews

Judge poised to toss lawsuit against Pacers owner

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A judge suggested Wednesday that she plans to throw out key portions of a lawsuit by a nanny who claims she was fired by Indiana Pacers owner Herb Simon and his wife because she became pregnant.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Amy Hogue, who planned to issue her decision Thursday, rebuffed hours of arguments by the attorney for nanny Claudia Leite, saying she didn't believe much of the nanny's testimony.

"I can't remember a case with so much impeaching testimony and things that didn't make sense," Hogue told Leite's attorney, Joseph Davis. "It's astounding."

She said she also doubted the testimony of a chauffeur who joined in the lawsuit.

The case offered insight into the lifestyle of a super-rich family with several homes and private jet. Simon, and his wife, Bui, a former Miss Universe, have homes in California and Indiana and travel with a staff that includes nannies for their four children. His family founded the Indiana-based Simon Property Group. According to Forbes, his net worth is $1.4 billion.

"It's hard to infer an anti-family, anti-pregnancy animus from Mrs. Simon when her whole history has been pro-child," said the judge. She noted that Bui Simon runs a foundation for orphans and she adopted the daughter of a sister who died and raised her as her own child even before she married Simon.

"She's not someone who had children and abandoned them to nannies," said the judge. "She drove them to school, fed them, put them to bed."

She also noted that Bui Simon had been extremely generous to Leite, who worked for the Simons for eight years. She said the Simons gave Leite $20,000 to help her mother buy a house in Brazil, gave her a used Mercedes for her personal use and an $11,000 pair of diamond earrings for a birthday.

"It's hard for me to reconcile that with some secret spiteful animus," said the judge who ridiculed the idea that Mrs. Simon was secretly "the Wicked Witch of the West or Cruella DeVille."

Attorney Joseph Davis, representing Leite and chauffeur Robert Young, said in his hours-long argument that Bui Simon tried to humiliate Leite by giving her some of her used pregnancy clothes which were too small for her. The judge said the motive wasn't believable. She also rejected a complaint by Leite that during a trip to Indianapolis, Bui Simon refused to let her go to an emergency room when she experienced discomfort with her pregnancy.

Instead, Leite acknowledged her employer called a friend who was an eminent neo natal doctor and sought his opinion on the phone.

"To me what she did was reasonable and kind," said the judge. She also noted that other employees in the Simon household testified that they were given generous maternity leaves when they became pregnant. Instead of avoiding pregnant employees, she said Bui Simon "continued to hire employees who had more and more children."

Leite was dismissed because of a screaming argument she had with another member of the household staff, the judge said, noting the incident caused the children to cry.

"This is not IBM and computer scientists in a cubicle," Hogue said. "This is a family."

She said Bui Simon had to act to insure calm in the household. She suspended both women for a time, she said, but Leite was fired after a phone conversation in which she told her employer: "It's your fault. You made the children cry." The judge called it "a belligerent response."

She said, "It is undisputed that the Simons were generally delighted with her care of the children," but by the end of the relationship, they no longer liked Leite.

The Simons sat through every day of the three-week trial and gave testimony. Their lawyer, Patricia Glaser, said they refused to consider a settlement with the employees.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

ADVERTISEMENT