I don’t like the race card at all, but . . .

Andrew Lamberto

Someone sent me a link to this article that appeared in the Los Angeles Times back in 2004.  Their comment was “Interesting how a Hispanic woman was treated so differently.”  Liz’s “conflict” was related to sex as well EXCEPT she did not commit a crime.

The other item of note is the difference in how one Human Resources chief was treated versus another Human Resources chief, is that the Sanchez committed her act at a time when the county was still reeling from a corruption scandal.  Lamberto committed his crime at a time when the county claims to be corruption free and transparent.

I guess we’ve cleaned the county up and declared the county “corruption free” by redefining corruption.  That is the only explanation I can think of.

 

8 thoughts on “I don’t like the race card at all, but . . .

  1. Not just race Sharon, she was a female. There is a huge double standard for acceptable male behavior as opposed to female behavior. Elizabeth was more than competent and employee friendly. She was not married at the time and also did not commit a crime. Also, Mr Uffer informed the BOS that he intended to seek her resignation which the complete opposite of how Dev handled this

  2. Agreed. And Liz was one of the best we’ve ever had in that position. She was fair to employees.

  3. Not saying it isn’t a deal. But one is a stupid choice that damages yourself. The other compromises the entire bargaining process.

  4. Well she sued and I believe she ultimately won on one cause of action or there was a settlement. I believe she always maintained that the affair started after negotiations were concluded. I’m not sure if that has ever been confirmed. I found the appellate decision. I will see what else I can find to shed light on this.

  5. If I recall, and I might be wrong, she won because they violated the confidentiality clause.

Leave a Reply