A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Ex-domestic worker sues CA tech execs for sexual harassment

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

One does not have to work in an office, store, warehouse, factory or other traditional workplace to be subject to sexual harassment. Domestic workers may have a harder time fending off harassment, because there may be nobody besides the harasser to report the behavior to.

Sadly, this may make the harassment invisible to the rest of the world. In many cases, the power dynamic between employer and domestic employee may make taking action difficult. But one woman has taken the step of suing the couple she used to work for, SF Weekly reports.

The spouses are both executives at major tech companies. They hired the plaintiff to serve as a live-in domestic in 2008, when they were living in Singapore, and took her with them when they moved to San Francisco in 2013. The plaintiff, a native of the Philippines, quit in April.

She says the husband would routinely force her to work while he watched in the nude. He allegedly would also leave the bathroom door open while using the toilet. Once, the husband asked the plaintiff to massage his legs with a rolling pin before apologizing.

Though the husband warned the plaintiff not to tell his wife about his behavior, the plaintiff tried to speak to the wife on several occasions. According to the lawsuit, the wife would always claim she had no time to discuss the matter.

Besides sexual harassment, the suit charges the defendants with underpaying her by forcing her to sign contracts claiming she worked 30 hours per week, when she usually worked up to 54 hours. She also says she was denied meal and rest breaks as required by law.

Nobody deserves to be sexually harassed, including those who are harassed behind the closed doors of a private home.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.