Inter striker Lautaro Martinez and his partner have hit out angrily after losing a legal action brought by the family of their deceased former baby-sitter. ‘What kind of person uses the death of a daughter to get money?’
The tribunal in Milan ruled that Lautaro Martinez must pay the baby-sitter’s family for wrongful dismissal.
She was 27 years old and hired to be a nanny for the couple’s children Nina, but after eight months she was hospitalised for stomach pains, which doctors discovered were caused by a terminal illness.
It is argued that during her hospital stay, she was fired for taking too many sick days.
Lautaro Martinez must pay her family’s legal fees as well as at least 15 months of wages.
“I decided to stay silent for a long time out of respect for a family who had no respect for us,” wrote partner Agustina Gandolfo on Instagram, a message that was then also reposted by Lautaro Martinez.
“But I will not allow them to defame my family. We hired someone who was already ill, who had been our friend for years, until unfortunately she was no longer in a condition to work.
“We did a great deal for her and her family. We paid their tickets to fly here, we helped her with treatment and to find a place for her family, who we had to convince to come to Italy and look after their daughter who was dying.
“After all of that, they waited until their daughter was about to die and not aware of what was happening so they could try to get money out of us and make the most of the situation. Even after her death, they continued to push.
“We helped her when she needed us and now they start this, trying to defame us? What kind of person must you be to use the death of your daughter to get money? We are disgusted at the Lizzola family. They should get to work!”
The couple’s layers also released a statement assuring that the nanny had herself asked six months earlier to be given notice so that she could return to Argentina, while the Inter player had offered to give even more than the court ruling ordered if it could be handed to charity, but her family refused.
Makes no sense. Why would the courts rule against him if he were as innocent and charitable as he says he was.