Nannies can sue former employers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It leads one to ask if these errors are made on purpose, specifically by including both the "at will" AND duration of employment term.

No, it leads you to ask that. The rest of us are not bothered.

You're not concerned with signing contracts with conflicting provisions? Please don't tell us you're a lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost every nanny employment contract I've come across lacked definitions in any meaningful sense. Good luck winning a settlement with a contract that has giant holes in it.

They usually do specify terms and notice periods of termination with and without cause. Only if they lack that clause could one possibily have a chance at getting wages through for the duration of the contract.

It seems we are in basic agreement. As previously mentioned, there are widespread problems with most nanny contracts, even those written by lawyer agency owners and other supposed experts. It leads one to ask if these errors are made on purpose, specifically by including both the "at will" AND duration of employment term.

I've come across what seemed like intentional errors and called them out on it.

There's nothing keeping you from writing your own contract template for future employment. That's my plan. I'm also going to include a special kind of confidentiality agreement clause to avoid being dragged into custody disputes. That's happened to me twice.

[Anonymous]

Typo. What should be that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Typo. What should be that.

Or not. I'm reading and typing too fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:18:16 is exactly right.

Why are you telling 8:16 she's right when you darn well no that you ARE 8:16.. Stop pretending to stick up for yourself.. Just because you say it's right doesn't mean it is. I wish you people would post links or information to back up your opinions because alot of times you are incorrect and so far off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It leads one to ask if these errors are made on purpose, specifically by including both the "at will" AND duration of employment term.

No, it leads you to ask that. The rest of us are not bothered.

You're not concerned with signing contracts with conflicting provisions? Please don't tell us you're a lawyer.

No. I'm not suspicious that such errors are made on purpose, which is what you said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:18:16 is exactly right.



Why are you telling 8:16 she's right when you darn well no that you ARE 8:16.. Stop pretending to stick up for yourself.. Just because you say it's right doesn't mean it is. I wish you people would post links or information to back up your opinions because alot of times you are incorrect and so far off.

I'm not the PP you are quoting nor am I 18:16.

You really need to dial back your dramatic fits every time someone has a different opinions than yours. If you don't have to post links with information backing up your opinions, then they don't have to either. Just because you shout down every opinion different than your own doesn't make YOU right. It just makes you very annoying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18:16 is exactly right.

Why are you telling 8:16 she's right when you darn well no that you ARE 8:16.. Stop pretending to stick up for yourself.. Just because you say it's right doesn't mean it is. I wish you people would post links or information to back up your opinions because alot of times you are incorrect and so far off.

I'm not either of the PPs, but have you considered doing your own research?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18:16 is exactly right.

Why are you telling 8:16 she's right when you darn well no that you ARE 8:16.. Stop pretending to stick up for yourself.. Just because you say it's right doesn't mean it is. I wish you people would post links or information to back up your opinions because alot of times you are incorrect and so far off.

I'm not either of the PPs, but have you considered doing your own research?

Exactly. Moreover, opinions do not require proof. That's why they are called opinions, lol.
It's when you pretend that what you say is "fact", it'd be best to back it up.

As the successful win-win-win nanny, I share only my experiences. Those of you who insist that it can't be so, n
eed to back up your statements. Just because you can't make your child in tow a benefit to all, doesn't mean that I can't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18:16 is exactly right.

Why are you telling 8:16 she's right when you darn well no that you ARE 8:16.. Stop pretending to stick up for yourself.. Just because you say it's right doesn't mean it is. I wish you people would post links or information to back up your opinions because alot of times you are incorrect and so far off.

I'm not either of the PPs, but have you considered doing your own research?

Exactly. Moreover, opinions do not require proof. That's why they are called opinions, lol.
It's when you pretend that what you say is "fact", it'd be best to back it up.

As the successful win-win-win nanny, I share only my experiences. Those of you who insist that it can't be so, n
eed to back up your statements. Just because you can't make your child in tow a benefit to all, doesn't mean that I can't.

Ooops, mixed up my threads this evening; doing to much. Sorry guys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It leads one to ask if these errors are made on purpose, specifically by including both the "at will" AND duration of employment term.

No, it leads you to ask that. The rest of us are not bothered.

You're not concerned with signing contracts with conflicting provisions? Please don't tell us you're a lawyer.

No. I'm not suspicious that such errors are made on purpose, which is what you said.

I said, "It leads one to ask if these errors are made on purpose." Please check your reading comprehension. Or are you misquoting me on purpose in an attempt to confuse other readers? My statement, as you know, was made in the context of lawyer agency owners who include the conflict of provisions being discussed. Even though we know that some of them are here, none has yet stated that they recommend one provision or the other, but not both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It leads one to ask if these errors are made on purpose, specifically by including both the "at will" AND duration of employment term.

No, it leads you to ask that. The rest of us are not bothered.

You're not concerned with signing contracts with conflicting provisions? Please don't tell us you're a lawyer.

No. I'm not suspicious that such errors are made on purpose, which is what you said.

I said, "It leads one to ask if these errors are made on purpose." Please check your reading comprehension. Or are you misquoting me on purpose in an attempt to confuse other readers? My statement, as you know, was made in the context of lawyer agency owners who include the conflict of provisions being discussed. Even though we know that some of them are here, none has yet stated that they recommend one provision or the other, but not both.

You are making my head spin.

Right, you said "it leads one to ask if these errors are made on purpose."

I disagreed with your implication that anyone other than you was asking that question, and so I said "No, it leads you to ask that."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It leads one to ask if these errors are made on purpose, specifically by including both the "at will" AND duration of employment term.

No, it leads you to ask that. The rest of us are not bothered.

You're not concerned with signing contracts with conflicting provisions? Please don't tell us you're a lawyer.

No. I'm not suspicious that such errors are made on purpose, which is what you said.

I said, "It leads one to ask if these errors are made on purpose." Please check your reading comprehension. Or are you misquoting me on purpose in an attempt to confuse other readers? My statement, as you know, was made in the context of lawyer agency owners who include the conflict of provisions being discussed. Even though we know that some of them are here, none has yet stated that they recommend one provision or the other, but not both.

You are making my head spin.

Right, you said "it leads one to ask if these errors are made on purpose."

I disagreed with your implication that anyone other than you was asking that question, and so I said "No, it leads you to ask that."

There you go again, thinking that everyone else needs to be in agreement with your opinions. Perhaps you should get that spinning little head of yours checked out by a professional. Hope there's a remedy for you. Good luck to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP I don't know where you are getting your information but that isn't correct. A nanny is an hourly at will employee no matter what her contracts says or doesn't say about it. Employers and nannies can't write in terms that are counter to the employment regulations.

An employer can write in the contract that the nanny agrees to stay for two years but this isn't enforceable. The nanny doesn't owe the employer 1.5 years of pay if she quits after 6 months. An employer can also fire a nanny for any reason. They don't need cause because she is an at will employee. The term "cause" comes more into play for whether the nanny would receive any termination notification time outlined in the contract and whether she would be eligible for unemployment.

Another example would be minimum wage. An employer can write in the contract that the nanny accepts a rate below minimum wage. The nanny can sign it but the nanny is still owed a rate that is minimum wage and can later file for back pay. It doesn't matter that the contract said both parties agreed to lower than minimum wage.

Finally, I think many nannies don't realize that cause is a broad term and there is no need to prove cause beyond a reasonable doubt. Some nannies seem to think that if the employer doesn't have criminal court level evidence of her not performing her job that it is not cause. They don't need a time stamped, independently authenticated photo of you chatting on your phone at the park. Cause can be as a simple as insubordination, failure to communication, dereliction of duty, misappropriation of employer property resources and there is no requirement that nannies be given multiple chances. If you are late once this could be used for cause. You can't argue that you had a bunch of reasons why you were late or that you think you should get another chance or even that its not fair because your employer was late. Nope, you wee late is all that matters in terms of cause.

Except for collecting unemployment. Employer must prove cause if she's fight it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Almost every nanny employment contract I've come across lacked definitions in any meaningful sense. Good luck winning a settlement with a contract that has giant holes in it.

They usually do specify terms and notice periods of termination with and without cause. Only if they lack that clause could one possibily have a chance at getting wages through for the duration of the contract.

It seems we are in basic agreement. As previously mentioned, there are widespread problems with most nanny contracts, even those written by lawyer agency owners and other supposed experts. It leads one to ask if these errors are made on purpose, specifically by including both the "at will" AND duration of employment term.

Thoughts?