Tuesday 11 November 2014 Quotidianodipuglia.it
Two suspects and the charge of attempted extortion for the truncated employment relationship with the biologist from Lecce in the third month of pregnancy. The story is the one that became a national case after the service aired last Wednesday in the show "Le Iene". The complaint filed in the prosecutor's office in the summer of 2013 by the 32-year-old Roberta Martignago (with the lawyer Stefano Leuzzi) started the investigation which closed on 25 September with the notice of conclusion of the investigation signed by the public prosecutor Roberta Licci.
The suspects are the administrator and area manager of the pharmaceutical company "Lo.Li Pharma" in Rome: now they must defend themselves against accusations of having resorted to threats to obtain an "unfair profit". And, that is, the money they would have had to pay to guarantee her the social security protections provided for the pregnant worker. The threats allegedly consisted in requesting the return of the almost 8,000 euros of advances on commissions for the years 2011-2013 to convince Martignago to resign when a year and a half ago she informed them that she was expecting a child.
Nothing came of it and the Salento biologist turned to the judicial authority with the complaint. Under accusation are Roberto Smargiassi and Daniele Scafora, respectively 37 and 53 years old. The first is the administrator of "Lo.Li Pharma" and is from Rome, the other is the area manager and is from Naples. The suspects seem willing to inform the magistrate of their truths without waiting for a possible trial: as soon as they were informed of the existence and conclusions of the investigation, they both asked to be questioned in the presence of defense lawyers Fulvio Pedone, Carlo Foam, Gioacomo Tutinelli and Rodolfo Capozzi.
Finally, the dialogues held with Martignano in five phone calls formed the cornerstone of the accusations. All recorded by the former employee and all contained in the DVD delivered to the Public Prosecutor's Office. Both Smargiassi and Scafora strongly advised her to resign once they were aware of her pregnancy. Otherwise, they would have terminated the sales agent contract for pharmaceutical products in the province of Lecce. And – ironically – a fertility product. Which they then did, because in the meantime Martignago did not resign. And with a letter they also ordered her to return almost 8 thousand euros in advances on commissions.
The crux of the reasons for the dismissal remains. «Because she is pregnant», the biologist from Lecce has always maintained even in front of the cameras of the program "Le Iene". For other reasons, however, they claim from the pharmaceutical company: "The biologist was fired because the employment relationship had become unproductive".
But since it was an external collaborator with a VAT number, did Martignago still have the same social security and welfare protections provided for in employment relationships and clarified by the civil code? Yes: this conclusion was reached by the investigation conducted by the public prosecutor Licci with the police section of the prosecutor's office. Because - says the indictment - the relationship between the Salento biologist and "Lo.Li Pharma" lasted continuously for two and a half years, with a fixed monthly salary consisting of a guaranteed minimum, commissions and an advance the latter. Issues that will also be addressed by the labor judge.
Related news: Stories of ISF. Lecce, she is pregnant, the company fires her
Fired because she was pregnant, the clarification
With regard to the story of the biologist from Lecce "sacked because she was pregnant" and the investigation subsequently opened by the Public Prosecutor's Office, we have received and published the correction requested by the lawyer Rodolfo Capozzi, attorney of Dr. Roberto Smargiassi, employee of the company Lo.Li pharma.My client incidentally found, just a few days ago, the article entitled: «Fired because she was pregnant, the case in "Le iene". Two executives are now under investigation", where it can be read, with reference to the story relating to an alleged extortion attempt against Ms Roberta Martignago currently under the attention of the Lecce Public Prosecutor's Office: "the suspects are the administrator and the head of the pharmaceutical company "Lo.Li.Pharma" in Rome ... accused are Roberto Smargiassi and Daniele Scafora, respectively 37 and 53 years old. The first is the administrator of "Lo.Li Pharma" and is from Rome».
Furthermore, in the aforesaid article it can be read that "both Smargiassi and Scafora strongly advised her (to Ms Martignago, ed) to resign once they were made aware of the state of pregnancy. Otherwise, they would have terminated the sales agent contract for pharmaceutical products in the province of Lecce… which they then did, because in the meantime Martignago did not resign. And with a letter they also ordered her to return almost 8 thousand euros in advances on commissions ».
Well, given that my sponsorship is to be considered exempt from any liability in the ambit of the aforementioned criminal case, it is not true that he is «director of ”Lo.Li. Pharma”», being only an employee of the same limited liability company (unlike Ms. Martignago), employed in the administrative office, without holding any senior position.
Furthermore, it is not true that my client "strongly advised Ms Martignago to resign", indeed the business broker of the aforementioned "Lo.Li.Pharma Srl", "once (informed) of the state of pregnancy" on the part of the aforementioned procurer, for whom - on the other hand - he always showed the utmost respect and delicate tact. The further circumstance according to which my client allegedly "rescinded the contract of sales agent (or business procurer, ed.) of pharmaceutical products" and of having ordered a letter to Mrs. Martignago "to resistuire almost 8 thousand euros of advances on commissions.
In this regard, it is important to underline how my client: never "strongly advised Ms. Martignago to resign", who, being linked to the Company by a contractual relationship of business procurement, could not even have resigned, considering that the resignation requires a subordinate employment relationship, which is non-existent; He did not have at the time (and still does not have) any power of signature in the context of the duties performed within the aforementioned Company, and in any case he did not draft, sign or forward the - even more than legitimate - letters referred to above reference to Mrs. Martignago.
