In-Home Support Services worker may be jointly-employed by county, sue for unpaid wages
February 13, 2013 by Teague Paterson
A new ruling from California’s First Appellate District finds that a trial court improperly dismissed an In-Home-Support Services (IHSS) worker’s FLSA-based wage claim against the County of Sonoma and its IHSS Public Authority, based on a joint employer theory. Ms. Guerrero worked for several months as in IHSS provider, but was never paid for her work to the recipient of the In-Home Support Services Act (IHSSA) benefits recipient. The IHSSA authorizes counties to administer through a public authority support services to disabled individuals who cannot support themselves, but do not require institutionalization. The Court found that the arrangements the County and the Public Authority made for provision of IHSS benefits could give rise to an employment relationship under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court reached this conclusion because the County and Public Authority retained (1) the power “over the purse strings” with respect to IHSS worker pay and benefits; (2) had control over the “rate and method” of payment to IHSS workers, even if the funding was mostly provided by the state; (3) they maintained employment records including the entry of IHSS worker time into a database for approval and payment purposes, and conducted auditing and background and qualification checks; and (4) they generally supervised the services provided by IHSS workers to determine base pay and any additional pay IHSS workers may be entitled.
The defendants also contended that the IHSS workers were exempt under the domestic service exception to the FLSA. The Appellate Court found that because the exemption requires a factual analysis of whether the work constitutes “general household work” in the main, rather than the care of an individual, which is not exempt, the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint at the pleadings stage before these factual issues could be determined.
The Case is Guerrero v. Superior Court, Case No. A133202 (Feb. 11, 2013), a decision of the First Appellate District of California.
The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.
