You are here: / / HOUSEKEEPER WAS EMPLOYEE OF CLEANING REFERRAL AGENCY.

HOUSEKEEPER WAS EMPLOYEE OF CLEANING REFERRAL AGENCY.

The Third Department determined a housekeeper was an employee of Today’s Cleaning Service (TCS), a referral agency which provided housekeepers for clients and was therefore entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

The record evidence establishes that TCS solicited applicants through online advertisements and through its website — which claimant used to complete an application and submit her résumé — and screened the applications that it received … . TCS’s hiring process also required claimant to complete several jobs on a voluntary and trial basis, during which she would work alongside an experienced housekeeper who would report back on claimant’s work and ability to effectively provide services for TCS’s clients. The initial rate of pay was established and set by TCS, and TCS paid claimant by check. TCS informed claimant of her scheduled jobs — which claimant was required to promptly accept or reject — and the nature and scope of services required for each. During the performance of those cleaning services, TCS required claimant to wear an identification badge reflecting her affiliation with TCS … . TCS also provided its clients with “scoreboards” that the clients could use to evaluate the services provided and inform TCS of a housekeeper’s performance, which TCS could consider when assigning future jobs. If claimant was unable to provide an agreed-upon service or report for a job, claimant was required to immediately inform TCS, and TCS would secure a substitute … .

Although claimant was allowed to keep any existing clients upon being hired by TCS and could work for other employers, the written referral agreement governing TCS’s relationship with each housekeeper prohibited solicitation of TCS’s clients for one year after the time period encompassed by the agreement and specified that TCS’s client information remained the private property of TCS… . Matter of Jachym (Today’s Cleaning Serv.–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 06523, 3rd Dept 10-6-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (HOUSEKEEPER WAS EMPLOYEE OF CLEANING REFERRAL AGENCY)/HOUSEKEEPER (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, HOUSEKEEPER WAS EMPLOYEE OF CLEANING REFERRAL AGENCY)

You might also like
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY DID NOT FILE AN AFFIRMATION AS REQUIRED BY AN ADMINSTRATIVE ORDER; THE MAJORITY DID NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE BECAUSE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR APPEAL WHICH DEFENDANT DID NOT PERFECT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ISSUE COULD AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ON THIS APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).
Court Properly Accepted Partial Verdict and Sent the Jury Back to Continue Deliberations on the Remaining Count
30-Day Time-Limit for Bringing Article 78 Proceeding Pursuant to Public Health Law Runs from Date of Determination, Not Date of Written Notice of Determination
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED DEFENDANT PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE STRUCTURE-LOSS (FIRE-DAMAGE) CLAIM; THE PARTIES WERE NOT MADE AWARE OF THAT POSSIBILITY PRIOR TO THE RULING (THIRD DEPT).
HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF CHILD’S STATEMENT NOT CORROBORATED, CUSTODY MODIFICATION PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THICKNESS OF THE ICE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, PROMISE TO PURCHASE LIABILITY INSURANCE IS NOT THE SAME AS A PROMISE TO INDEMNIFY (THIRD DEPT).
PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
Tax Payments Made Voluntarily Cannot Be Recovered Under a Mistake of Law Theory/Supreme Court Should Not Raise a “Non-Subject-Matter-Jurisdiction” Defense Sua Sponte

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

BOILER MANUFACTURER LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO WARN EMPLOYEES OF THE HAZARDS OF WORKING... BRAND AMBASSADOR WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE.