California court clarifies when fired workers lose rights to employer housing
Employee housing isn't a tenancy, California court rules, stripping fired workers of tenant protections in a binding December decision.
The December 22 decision from the Appellate Division of the Superior Court in Los Angeles County offers clarity for employers navigating the tricky intersection of employment agreements and tenant rights laws.
The case started when John De Paolo, who manages a Sherman Oaks apartment building through his family trust, hired Jenny Rosales as his on-site property manager in late 2020. The deal seemed straightforward: Rosales would handle day-to-day operations and live in Unit 106 as part of her compensation package.
Their written agreement spelled out the arrangement clearly. Rosales would pay 710 dollars monthly for an apartment typically worth 780 dollars, but that same 710 dollars also represented her entire paycheck as manager. In other words, the housing was her salary, not a separate rental transaction.
The contract included language HR professionals should note. It stated the job was at-will, meaning De Paolo could end it anytime without cause or advance warning. More importantly, it required Rosales and anyone living with her to move out within 30 days after her employment ended.
About six weeks after moving in, Rosales reconciled with Richard Charlemagne, the father of her children, and he joined her in the unit. Both later testified they listed each other...
PORTLAND, Maine (WGME) -- A week after employees at the Holy Donut on Park Avenue in Portland told the company they were looking to unionize, the company now says those workers made false accusati...