Forced Labor Case Study: U.S. v. Olga Murra 1980s - Sisters - - PDF document

4/5/2018 1

Forced Labor Case Study: U.S. v. Olga Murra

Michelle Allen-McCoy Alison Maher

Background

• 1980s - Sisters (Tania, Yuri, Jehan, and Ingrid) met

Olga and her children, in Mexico; 6-11 years old

• Sisters’ mother had mental health issues and father

was an alcoholic

• Sisters worked for Olga (household chores, flower

shop, factory)

• Role of religion: Olga spoke the will of God

Move from MX to US in late 1990s

• Sisters, now adults, smuggled into the United

States (Olga is a USC)

• House cleaning business; McDonald’s, Walmart,

FedEx

• Punishment – “in sin”
• Sleeping in garage
• Deprived of food
• Religious recordings/Discipline sessions
• Verbal abuse (called mentally retarded, going to hell)

Escapes/Exits

• 2000 – Tania – Olga put her on bus to Laredo, TX
• 2004 – Jehan - ran out of house in PJs in middle of

the night

• 2004 – Yuri - dropped off on street with bag of

clothes

• 2011 – Ingrid - rescued by other sisters

Law Enforcement Involvement

• 2015 –Brochure on human trafficking at Catholic

Charities

• Referral to Mosaic Family Services
• Homeland Security Investigations

Additional Victim

• Vania – Olga’s half-sister
• Role of religion – Olga spoke the will of God
• Convinced Vania not to pursue practice of medicine or

to marry

• Came to US in 1997 (illegally)
• Manager of Olga’s business until 2002 when stood up

for other victims

• Deprivation of food, sleeping in garage, threatened to

call immigration

• 2006 – dropped off at apartment in undesirable part of

town with bag of clothes

4/5/2018 2

Additional Victim

• Maurizio – met Olga in Mexico
• Came from abusive home, looking for family
• Came to US with Olga in 1990’s
• 2001 – Olga sent him to CA on a bus
• 2009 – Olga sent for Maurizio to provide

medical care for her husband

• Once, husband passed –Olga kicked him out

Forced Labor 18 U.S.C. 1589

• Defendant provided or obtained labor and

services of [Victims]

• Defendant provided or obtained services of

[Victims] through a scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause [Victims] to believe that non-performance would result in serious harm or physical restraint

• Defendant acted knowingly

Serious Harm

• Any harm, whether physical or non-

physical, including psychological, financial,

• r reputational harm, that is sufficiently

serious under all circumstances to compel a reasonable person of the same background and in the same circumstances to perform

• r to continue to perform labor or services

in order to avoid incurring that harm

Forced Labor

• If victims suffered consequences in

connection with services, either as punishment or as part of a climate of fear that overcame her will and compelled her service, that is sufficient to establish the second element of forced labor

Forced Labor

• Consider surrounding circumstances -

Atmosphere of violence, verbal abuse and insults, isolation, poor working and living conditions, denial of adequate food, water, rest, and medical care, withholding of pay,

• r any combination

MOSAIC’S ROLE

VICTIM SERVICES

4/5/2018 3

Initial Contact

• Survivors reach out to Mosaic and have initial

intake with case management

• Due to length of time since escape, most

critical needs were counseling and legal

• Significant hesitation about coming forward

and need for support

• Case manager refers for legal consultation

Legal Consultation and Reporting

• Identification process
• Orientation to reporting options and criminal

justice process

• Risks and benefits of reporting
• Immigration relief available
• Allow survivor time to weigh options and ask

follow up questions

• Follow up meetings to ensure preparedness to

report

• Early role as liaison between survivors and

investigating agent

Continued Presence and T Visa Interaction

• Use of trusted law enforcement contact
• Critical - timely request for continued presence
• Presence of immigration-related threats and

retaliation

– Efforts to attack survivors through employment – Vulnerabilities

• Decision on timing of T filing – victim

services perspective

Protecting Survivor Privacy Interests in Records

• Defense served Mosaic subpoena “any and all

communications, reports, interview notes, work product, client tracking form, intake forms or

• ther writings or information electronic or paper,

by or between/to and from Mosaic Family Services, AND ANYONE ELSE” regarding all survivors with deadline one week prior to trial

• Responded with assertions of all applicable

privileges; after in camera review and interview

• f custodians of records, court upheld claims

Rulings on Privilege

• Failed defense arguments:

– Mental health privilege did not apply to LPC interns – By denying representation for a T visa, client denied existence of attorney-client relationship – Survivors ‘discussed the same subject matter’ in reporting to government that they discussed with attorney

• On appeal, privilege claims upheld

– Mosaic leave to intervene denied; amicus filed through pro bono counsel – Court ruled license-eligible individuals acting under supervision

• f licensed counselors get privilege

– In both contexts, no one disclosed any portion of actual confidential communications that would amount to waiver