"K.V." from Brooklyn asks if she should fire her (literally) psychotic nanny, a Haitian national who is in America illegally, "to protect my children."
According to Cohen:
"You are restrained not only by ethics but also by the spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act. An attorney I consulted says that if you ran a larger business, "to fire her would be illegal." Were she to stop taking her medication or otherwise display dangerous behavior, a business could dismiss her. Fortunately, as a stay-at-home mother, you can see if her condition deteriorates before anyone is imperiled."
So...he agrees with the ADA law and even though she isn't even bound by law to follow it, she should follow it.
He goes on:"Her immigration status already restricts her other employment prospects, and her limited options, as you imply, impose an additional ethical burden on you. If she can do the job, she should be allowed to keep it."
So...he disagrees with the laws concerning illegal aliens and while she is bound by that law, she shouldn't follow it. Don't you just love the ethics of the NYTimes!
Hat Tip: WSJ Best of the Web
1 comment:
This is the central problem in any reform of ethics, or enforcing standards of conduct.
As long as one group routinely defines their defiance of law as a moral issue, there is no impulse for any reform or enforcement of ALL laws.
And, we're getting plenty tired of these ethical and conduct standards ONLY being applied to Republicans.
Post a Comment