Reply to Au Pair just asked for more money

Forum Index » Childcare other than Daycare and Preschool

Reply to "Au Pair just asked for more money"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]For those of you currently using AP's, or considering using them, how risk averse are you? It's not just Massachusetts laws changing. 
From Shortchanged: Au pairs are currently challenging this wage calculation in an ongoing class action lawsuit in Colorado, Beltran v. InterExchange, Inc., which alleges that the sponsor organizations are violating not only minimum wage and overtime laws, but also federal antitrust law and state-law fraud protections. The plaintiffs allege that the sponsors’ stipend amount violates federal, state, and local minimum wage rules and deprives them of earned overtime premiums. They also assert that the sponsors colluded to set that wage, which accounts for neither the number of children an au pair cares for nor her geographic location, in violation of the antitrust laws. Finally, the plainti s allege that the sponsors fraudulently misrepresented the au pair program, au pairs’ ability to negotiate their wages, and the wages the au pairs were entitled to receive.

The Federal District Court of Colorado has determined that the au pairs in Beltran have viable claims in each of these areas. In particular, the au pairs are proceeding with minimum wage claims under federal, state, and various local laws, and the Court has explained that FLSA bars the practice of deducting room and board from wages where, as in the case of au pairs, live-in employment is a program requirement for the benefit of the employer. The Court further concluded that the au pairs have a viable claim for overtime, since au pair sponsor agencies are employers who “may not avail themselves of the [domestic worker] overtime exemption, even if the employee is jointly employed by the individual or member of the family or household using the services.”

The Court additionally found that the au pairs have a viable claim against the sponsor agencies for wage fixing and recently certified a class of over 91,000 current and former au pairs to proceed with that claim. The court also certifed classes under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organiza- tions Act (RICO), state minimum wage laws and state fraud rules. The au pairs are also proceeding collectively with federal wage and hour claims under the FLSA’s collective action mechanism.

As a general matter, au pairs report that the program fails to guarantee access to the basic material needs and services promised under the J-1 au pair program. Despite program requirements that host families guarantee transportation to classes, some au pairs interviewed for this report stated that they did not have access to transportation to attend their required classes or to leave the house on their days off.[/quote]

I’m not very concerned given that Boies Schiller didn’t include families, only agencies, in their suit, because you could never get a certified class that included families as defendants. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics