Sharon Stone Sued for Paying (yes paying) Her Nanny Overtime?

by on June 10, 2012

 

Sharon Stone’s former nanny has sued her in Los Angeles Superior Court for, among other things, paying her overtime.  Yes, you read this right, suing for getting paid overtime.  The lawsuit alleges that the high-profile actress from Basic Instinct and Casino paid the nanny overtime, but then terminated the nanny because she accepted the overtime.  Not making any sense?

The lawsuit accuses Stone of getting angry when she found out her staff was paying the nanny overtime.  So Stone allegedly accused the nanny of “stealing” the overtime and demanded the nanny pay it back.  The lawsuit alleges that when the nanny did not pay back the overtime, her hours were cut and that she was fired shortly thereafter.

The lawsuit also alleges racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

What do you think of this “getting overtime” retaliation lawsuit?

Comment below or at www.ShiraziLawFirm.com/blog

 

  • Michaelcaldwell

    She handed the nanny a wonderful retaliation claim under the FLSA. Te jury will love that one. Stone is supposed to be a MENSA member. Not too smart this time. She’ll either be smart, contrite and settle early, or she’ll make the nanny’s lawyer wealthy.

    Speaking of retaliation, what do you think of this ? An Assistant DA suffers forma sleep disorder, apnea with a number of consequential other syndromes. She is assigned to the “complaint room” night shift. Her doctor orders her to change to a day shift position. She contacts her boss who refuses to change her shift. She contacts HR door the county which tells her that if she presses an ADA right, and it cannot find a day job for her, it will have to terminate her ” for her own good.” she’s a single mother of 2 college students. Do we have a case yet, or must we wait for them to terminate her? We can seek injunctive relief under the ADA and sec 1983.

    • Rarrington

      It seems to me that the client hasn’t suffered pecuniary loss yet, but there is certainly an unwillingness to accommodate an apparent disability. A written demand from counsel might cause the county to rethink its position. Of course, it could also trigger a termination. That would cement the retaliation claim, but it would also put the client out of work. As for Ms. Stone’s case, we have to let the facts play out.

      • Emanuel

        Yes, employment law cases are very fact sensitive and we do not know all the facts.

  • Everhart

    Wow: Some lawyers/judges would love to have either side of this case in trial or on appeal. Is this a jury trial or a judge trial?

    • Guest

      I am quite certain the plaintiff will demand a jury trial.

  • Nancy

    Comment from Nancy via LinkedIn:

    Wow. If this summary holds true, this will be an interesting case. Does anyone actually thing this will go to trial or just settle? (I am inclined to guess that some sort of settlement involving a non-disclosure agreement will be reached.) 

    • Emanuel

      Over 90% of employment cases settle before trial, but who knows.  Stone may fight this on principle.  This case has a lot of facets to it, aside from the unusual overtime claim.

  • Robert

    Comment from Robert:

    Well, if it really happened that way, then Ms. Stone has a problem. Of course, what is alleged is not always what is proven. 

    • Emanuel

      The discrimination or the overtime claim?

  • David G

    Comment from David G.:

    Most cases settle for a variety of reasons. I have a hunch that this case will settle. I have a hunch that this plaintiff was not a model employee. I am sure that there is much more to the story. Who here would like to defend her? 

    • Emanuel

      I have yet to see any public response from Ms. Stone’s attorneys.

  • Tom J

    Actually, it seems like a pretty reasonable allegation to me.  If Stone fired the nanny for failing to pay back OT to which the nanny was entitled, that would certainly appear to be interference with the nanny’s FLSA rights.  If, however, the nanny was paid for OT that she didn’t actually work, Stone could lawfully discipline or discharge for that.

    • Emanuel

      Right on target.

  • Bob Kilgore

    Retaliation in the form of a clawback claim?

    • Emanuel

      It is not very clear at this time.

  • David Goldwater

    Too little information to make an informed call. If the overtime had been paid since the inception of the employment; then highly arguable that the payment of such was a condition of the contract between the parties.

    How long was the employment relationship on foot – the longer and more often the OT was paid the more likely it was a term of the contract.

    If not a  term or an implied term of the contract then recovery will depend on  Lex Loci as there are different rules in different jurisdictions

    • Emanuel

      I don’t believe the overtime claim is a contractual claim.  It is the reason the nanny claims she was retaliated against and fired.

Previous post:

Next post: