Santer

Santer v. Huff CA2/6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 19, 2024B331044California2,093 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS

Santer’s mother, Sondra, was an elderly woman living in her home in Leisure Village. Sondra needed assistance with shopping, meal preparation, and “light housework.” Santer posted an ad stating that he was searching for “a senior woman to share [L]eisure [V]illage home with current senior woman owner.” The work would include “light housework as needed, all typically between 10 [a.m.] to 7 [p.m.].” Huff responded, “I am a senior woman looking to share a home where I can assist.” In a subsequent message, Huff said, “I work part time for a charity. My hours are very flexible.” Huff signed a “roommate agreement.” It provided that she would pay “$0 rent” and “provide custodial support such as meals, transportation, wheelchair/walker escort, laundry, and assistance. This is not an Employment agreement and New Roomate [sic] is not an Employee.” Huff moved in and began providing services. She claimed Santer prohibited her from leaving the house for more than two hours on days other than Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays when she did charity work. Huff believed she was entitled to be paid wages. Huff filed a claim with the California Labor Commissioner. A Labor Commissioner hearing…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.