Fonseca
Fonseca v. Foxman CA2/2
Opinion
Opinion
FACTS
Respondents have four children. Through an agency, they hired Fonseca in mid-August 2016 as a nanny to live in their home Monday to Friday. Her payrate was $900 per week. Respondents did not ask Fonseca to keep a time sheet, or keep a time sheet for her. She spent 27 months in their employ. Her primary responsibility was to supervise respondents’ children, making sure they were fed, showered, and properly clothed. In January 2017, the Foxmans allowed Fonseca’s teenage son Max to move into their home. Once she and Max began to live with them seven days a week, respondents paid Fonseca $100 to child sit or help them on weekends. It was not a salary increase. Fonseca testified that she agreed to this arrangement as “a way of showing gratitude to them because Max was living there without paying rent.” Renting an apartment for Max would have cost her $1,500 to $1,800 per month. Max occasionally helped out. For example, he took respondents’ child to Universal Studios in 2017; in 2018, he collected a parcel from their front door and drove the children every few months. Respondents paid for his help. Fonseca did
2 not tell Max that respondents failed to pay what she was owed, and…