Experiences with Litigation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, here, just wanted to answer some questions. Yes, I am thinking about small claims. In six months, Family #1 has frequently been late with my paychecks, been late picking up without offering overtime, and suddenly announced they are leaving the share and don't intend to pay my unused leave time. I'm not worried about an ongoing relationship with them, except obviously I'd take them off my reference list. Family #2 likes me and wants to keep me. They are also pretty upset with Family #1.

I'm interested in hearing about other experiences though, and what it is like to be in court, even if it doesn't match my exact situation.

What state are you in OP? In MD, you are legally entitled to payment for unused leave, but not in DC or VA. As for the other issues, unless you have proof of the unpaid OT, they are good reasons to quit but not going to get you anything in court. You might just need to let this go and put your energy into finding a great family to replace them with.

But is it unused leave if she is still in the nanny share (just with 1 family now) therefore can still use that leave?

Ideally the new share would be setup as a brand new share, so no she can't really use that leave. The new family presumably would not appreciate OP taking a bunch of leave right after the start of the new share, and the general schedule and holidays may change as well and the monetary value of the leave may change if her weekly salary goes up or down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We sued our former nanny in small claims court. She was completely wrong. We won. It was terrible, and I wish we hadn't had to do it.

Wrong about what? Quitting?

Yes because only MBs/DBs do anything wrong and you could definitely win a law suit because a nanny quit.

Most MBs/DBs skirt the law at some time over the course of employment, and smart nannies keep records of EVERYTHING. My employers could have tried to sue me for quitting, but I gave the notice required in the contract, helped find a replacement, and could easily have met the burden of proof for "quitting for cause". Ie. changes to my duties, failure to pay on time, persistent tardiness, etc.

That's a nasty generalization. "Most" MBs/DBs do not skirt the law. If that's been your experience then maybe you need to take a closer look at your resume and see why those are the jobs you are getting.

I'm not talking about your little circle of friends and neighbors. New flash, you all are not the only people with nannies. The fact remains MOST nannies: are paid of the books, do not receive OT, and are not paid for all the hours they work. MANY: are illegal, are taxed as independant contractors while their emoployers pay no tax on their wages, and are subjected to illegal employment practices. TOO MANY: live in illegal basement "apartments", threatened and blackmailed for asserting their rights, some are even emotionally and physically abused. Yes, MOST meaning the vast majority, skirt the law in some manner, and quite a lot flat out break and ignore it.

You realize that just ranting repeatedly about what you believe to be true doesn't actually make it a fact, right? You just sound irrational, militant, and uninformed. Amusing and persistent though, I'll grant you that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We sued our former nanny in small claims court. She was completely wrong. We won. It was terrible, and I wish we hadn't had to do it.

Wrong about what? Quitting?

Yes because only MBs/DBs do anything wrong and you could definitely win a law suit because a nanny quit.

Most MBs/DBs skirt the law at some time over the course of employment, and smart nannies keep records of EVERYTHING. My employers could have tried to sue me for quitting, but I gave the notice required in the contract, helped find a replacement, and could easily have met the burden of proof for "quitting for cause". Ie. changes to my duties, failure to pay on time, persistent tardiness, etc.

That's a nasty generalization. "Most" MBs/DBs do not skirt the law. If that's been your experience then maybe you need to take a closer look at your resume and see why those are the jobs you are getting.

I'm not talking about your little circle of friends and neighbors. New flash, you all are not the only people with nannies. The fact remains MOST nannies: are paid of the books, do not receive OT, and are not paid for all the hours they work. MANY: are illegal, are taxed as independant contractors while their emoployers pay no tax on their wages, and are subjected to illegal employment practices. TOO MANY: live in illegal basement "apartments", threatened and blackmailed for asserting their rights, some are even emotionally and physically abused. Yes, MOST meaning the vast majority, skirt the law in some manner, and quite a lot flat out break and ignore it.

You realize that just ranting repeatedly about what you believe to be true doesn't actually make it a fact, right? You just sound irrational, militant, and uninformed. Amusing and persistent though, I'll grant you that.

Do you just string phrases together and hope they make sense? I'll keep ranting about what I believe to be true (reality) and you enjoy that bubble!

[Anonymous]

Newsflash: just because you believe something is true doesn't make it reality, 13:15.

You rant and rant but have no facts to back your claims.

[Anonymous]

If family #2 is also upset at family #1, they would likely support you going to small claims court so they don't feel guilted into making good on the other family's breach (I would feel bad enough for the nanny that I would try to make good even if it weren't my fault so she wouldn't be upset with us).

If it's something that can be handled in small claims court, I disagree with most of these posters. I say file and try. I don't know how else you'll get your money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We sued our former nanny in small claims court. She was completely wrong. We won. It was terrible, and I wish we hadn't had to do it.

Wrong about what? Quitting?

Yes because only MBs/DBs do anything wrong and you could definitely win a law suit because a nanny quit.

Most MBs/DBs skirt the law at some time over the course of employment, and smart nannies keep records of EVERYTHING. My employers could have tried to sue me for quitting, but I gave the notice required in the contract, helped find a replacement, and could easily have met the burden of proof for "quitting for cause". Ie. changes to my duties, failure to pay on time, persistent tardiness, etc.

That's a nasty generalization. "Most" MBs/DBs do not skirt the law. If that's been your experience then maybe you need to take a closer look at your resume and see why those are the jobs you are getting.

I'm not talking about your little circle of friends and neighbors. New flash, you all are not the only people with nannies. The fact remains MOST nannies: are paid of the books, do not receive OT, and are not paid for all the hours they work. MANY: are illegal, are taxed as independant contractors while their emoployers pay no tax on their wages, and are subjected to illegal employment practices. TOO MANY: live in illegal basement "apartments", threatened and blackmailed for asserting their rights, some are even emotionally and physically abused. Yes, MOST meaning the vast majority, skirt the law in some manner, and quite a lot flat out break and ignore it.

And many nannies (not all) lie and steal from their employers. They AGREE to be paid off the books and if anyone is getting physically abused than they are stupid for staying. I don't see your point. Most MBs/DBs are kind and fair so I don't know what picture you're trying to paint. How many nannies do you actually no? LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Newsflash: just because you believe something is true doesn't make it reality, 13:15.

You rant and rant but have no facts to back your claims.

I agree. 13:15 is just a weirdo, in my opinion. Don't even bother replying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Newsflash: just because you believe something is true doesn't make it reality, 13:15.

You rant and rant but have no facts to back your claims.

I agree. 13:15 is just a weirdo, in my opinion. Don't even bother replying.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, here, just wanted to answer some questions. Yes, I am thinking about small claims. In six months, Family #1 has frequently been late with my paychecks, been late picking up without offering overtime, and suddenly announced they are leaving the share and don't intend to pay my unused leave time. I'm not worried about an ongoing relationship with them, except obviously I'd take them off my reference list. Family #2 likes me and wants to keep me. They are also pretty upset with Family #1.

I'm interested in hearing about other experiences though, and what it is like to be in court, even if it doesn't match my exact situation.

late with paychecks: not a reason to sue
not "offering" overtime: you should then ASK FOR OVERTIME. If they refuse, maybe a reason to sue.
unused leave time: I don't understand this. You'll still be with the other family. you'll still be paid.

[Anonymous]

Employment law does stipulate that employees be paid on time but it doesn't stipulate any damages. If you bounced a check or incurred any late fees you could try to recover these fees.

OT is pretty straightforward and easier since in a share you could document it. You could create a list of the dates and times that they were late and see if the other family would create and sign a letter affirming this. I'm assuming that you are talking about a substantive amount. Judges get annoyed with litigious people wasting the courts time. If its a grand total of $10 don't go there but if its $100 or more small claims is good.

One thing to be aware when going after unpaid OT is that OT laws only factor in base and OT hours actually worked. Nannies try to be salaried and hourly which is fine to work out with your employers but unworked hours paid by guaranteed hours or anymore than 8 hours for a holiday don't count toward hitting the 40 hour mark.

On vacation it depends on the contract and the state so research this one. If you accrue hours meaning that each week you earn a few hours then its generally upheld that you are entitled to the hours that you accrued but did not take yet. Most nannies and families don't accrue though..the vacation is available when she starts. Notification time requirements or requests being turned down doesn't mean that you waiting for accrual. In this situation, its a use it or lose it situation. If an of your PTO or vacation occurred before you would have accrued it your family has pretty good proof that you weren't accruing hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Employment law does stipulate that employees be paid on time but it doesn't stipulate any damages. If you bounced a check or incurred any late fees you could try to recover these fees.

OT is pretty straightforward and easier since in a share you could document it. You could create a list of the dates and times that they were late and see if the other family would create and sign a letter affirming this. I'm assuming that you are talking about a substantive amount. Judges get annoyed with litigious people wasting the courts time. If its a grand total of $10 don't go there but if its $100 or more small claims is good.

One thing to be aware when going after unpaid OT is that OT laws only factor in base and OT hours actually worked. Nannies try to be salaried and hourly which is fine to work out with your employers but unworked hours paid by guaranteed hours or anymore than 8 hours for a holiday don't count toward hitting the 40 hour mark.

On vacation it depends on the contract and the state so research this one. If you accrue hours meaning that each week you earn a few hours then its generally upheld that you are entitled to the hours that you accrued but did not take yet. Most nannies and families don't accrue though..the vacation is available when she starts. Notification time requirements or requests being turned down doesn't mean that you waiting for accrual. In this situation, its a use it or lose it situation. If an of your PTO or vacation occurred before you would have accrued it your family has pretty good proof that you weren't accruing hours.

The vacation laws depend on the state, so many of your assertions may or may not be true. In MD for example, unless otherwise stated, vacation is NOT use it or lose it, but to be paid out upon termination of employment. That is, accrued but unused vacation. If it doesn't accrue and was otherwise available for use, you ARE entitled to the monetary value.

http://www.dllr.state.md.us/labor/wagepay/wpunusedvacpay.shtml

[Anonymous]

Best advice is to first find an attorney that you can afford. You should talk about potential costs. A reputable attorney will be upfront about this and you can set a threshold on # of hours you will pay. Your family may not want to bother with court so it could only take one letter from an attorney representing you. You should be prepared for them to dig in their heals and get their own lawyer. You want to avoid escalating legal costs.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand the vitriol toward 13:15... Don't we all know that the majority of domestic employees in the US are paid illegally/off the books? I see that come up a lot in news articles. Obviously most DCUM users pay legally, but we are a small (tiny) subset of a nation-wide occupation and we simply aren't representative of the whole - just think how many more college-educated nannies we see here versus in the Midwest. If we only used DC as our sample group we could argue most nannies have a BA, which clearly isn't true at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Newsflash: just because you believe something is true doesn't make it reality, 13:15.

You rant and rant but have no facts to back your claims.

I agree. 13:15 is just a weirdo, in my opinion. Don't even bother replying.

+1000

You guys do see the irony that you are, in fact, replying to 13:15

[Anonymous]

Irony? What are you talking about, 20:27?

Sounds like you have reading comprehension problems.