Post by thunderhawk on Mar 19, 2014 9:02:58 GMT -6
Hernandez v. Natural Milk Production, LLP d/b/a Ultimilk Dairy Co., File No.
5028600 (App. Dec. July 27, 2011).
In a hearing before the Iowa Division of Workers’ Compensation and in
defendants’ appellate brief claimant was referenced as a “wetback.” The defendants’
appellate brief stated “claimant came to the United States as a wetback in August or
October of 2007.” This label is extremely deprecating to people of Mexican origin. The
origin of the term in the record of this case did not diminish the clearly offensive nature
of the term in the context of the appellate brief. There may have been many descriptive
terms that could identity the individual claimant; surely there was no need to degrade
him in this manner.
5028600 (App. Dec. July 27, 2011).
In a hearing before the Iowa Division of Workers’ Compensation and in
defendants’ appellate brief claimant was referenced as a “wetback.” The defendants’
appellate brief stated “claimant came to the United States as a wetback in August or
October of 2007.” This label is extremely deprecating to people of Mexican origin. The
origin of the term in the record of this case did not diminish the clearly offensive nature
of the term in the context of the appellate brief. There may have been many descriptive
terms that could identity the individual claimant; surely there was no need to degrade
him in this manner.
No, really. The defendant is from Steve King's district.
In other shocking news, the baller attorney who felt compelled to use the word "wetback" in a filing before a judicial body is, of course, a graduate of...
wait for it...
= 
