The Indian housekeeper worked from morning until late at night, seven days week, for less than $3 an hour taking care of the two children of a diplomat. Unable to get a better deal, she made sure the children were cared for one day and walked out, her lawyer said Thursday.
From that moment on, Sangeeta Richard relied on the kindness of strangers within the Indian community in New York City, and even was looked after at one point by a Sikh temple. She eventually connected with the nonprofit Safe Horizon, which has an anti-trafficking program.
"She was basically just trying to find her way. She was left with the clothes on her back, with very little money," Safe Horizon staff attorney Dana Sussman said.
The housekeeper and Sussman eventually went to the State Department with the allegations.The
lawyer for a domestic help employed by Devyani Khobragade said it is
frustrating and disappointing that the focus in the case has shifted from the
crimes that were committed against her client to the Indian diplomat.
"There is frustration and disappointment that the media
(and the officials) has portrayed this story in the way that they have,"
Dana Sussman, staff attorney in the anti-trafficking programme at victim
assistance agency Safe Horizon, told PTI.
Sussman is the lawyer for the Indian woman Sangeeta Richard,
who had been employed by Khobragade as a domestic help and babysitter.
Senior Director of the anti-trafficking programme at Safe
Horizon, Avaloy Lanning said the victim and other advocates are
"frustrated" that the crime in thecase is being
"overshadowed" and the focus should be on the "crimes that were
committed rather than on the criminal defendant."
She said irrespective of the position of the Indian
officials about Richard's conduct, the charges against India's Deputy Consul General in New York "speak for
themselves".
Sussman stressed that the case is about Khobragade lying to
the federal government about the wages she was required to pay to her
client.
Khobragade "did not pay those wages, she grossly
underpaid my client and required that my client work far more than she had
expected" and Khobragade wrongly represented this information the US
government. "My client worked for her for quite a while and
eventually she decided that she could not tolerate the situation any
longer," Sussman said.
Sussman, however, did not comment on the whereabouts of
Richard and her family, on the police complaint lodged against her in India and the
fact that she had beenabsconding since June. She also said she would not
comment on the legal proceedings ongoing in India against Richard. She
added that her client will not "at thispoint" come out and talk to
the media.
She said Richard wants "justice" for herself and
the story that is being lost in this case is that Richard is a witness in a
federal investigation and criminal case against Khobragade. She will
continue to cooperate with authorities, Sussman added.
Richard is "not on trial here and we think that the
message here has been lost in the fact that there are charges against
Khobragade for violating USlaw and those charges relate to the underpayment of
wages to a domestic worker. That is the story. The actual story has been
lost" in the diplomatic row that has erupted between US and India.
Sussman said the case is representative of the experiences
of a significant number of domestic workers of diplomats and consular officials
from all over the world who come on special visas to the US but face
labour issues. "We would like to see this story told in a broader way that
discusses the issues of domestic workers of diplomats and consular officials
and the issues thatthey face and the vulnerability they have in labour abuses
and underpayment of wages," Sussman said, adding that her agency applauds the
US
government's action in the case.
Sussman said the action of the government demonstrates that
the US
is taking crimes which lead to exploitation and abuse of domestic workers
seriously. On the case being made by Indian authorities that Khobragade enjoys
diplomatic immunity, Sussman said Khobragade enjoyed only a "limited form
of consularimmunity" given to consular officials and employees of the
consulate.
"That does not pertain to her private actions in
employing a domestic worker. The receiving country, in this case the US, determines
what level of immunity a diplomat or consular official enjoys," she
said.
Whether Khobragade's transfer to the Indian Mission to the UN would weaken their case, Sussman said it is not upto Khobragade to determine what level of immunity she has.
"The receiving state determines the level of immunity
for any individual. I am sure the US government has considered
this," she said.
Meanwhile, the Indian diplomats at India's
Permanent Mission to the UN remained tight-lipped about the transfer of
Khobragade from the Consulate to the mission, neither did they comment on the
developments in the case