Court Rules Partner Was Not an Employee, Denies Caregiver's Claim
Translated & summarized from Bizportal by baba
A Tel Aviv labor court dismissed a NIS 64,524 claim by Magdalena Asturias, who alleged she was a live-in caregiver for her deceased partner, Tzadok Shasha. The court ruled that her caregiving was part of their romantic relationship, not an employment one, citing her admission of being his partner throughout their cohabitation. The ruling denied her claims for back pay and benefits, emphasizing the lack of an employer-employee relationship and finding her financial claims unsubstantiated. Asturias must pay NIS 7,500 in legal fees.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- A labor court rejected a caregiver's NIS 64,524 claim against her deceased partner's estate.
- The court ruled Magdalena Asturias acted as a partner, not an employee, in caring for Tzadok Shasha.
- Asturias admitted to being Shasha's partner, contradicting her employment claim.
- Evidence showed payments were for shared household expenses, not salary.
- The court found no employer-employee relationship existed.
- Asturias was ordered to pay NIS 7,500 in legal fees.
A labor court in Tel Aviv has rejected a claim by Magdalena Asturias, a caregiver from the Philippines, who sued the estate of her deceased partner, Tzadok Shasha, for NIS 64,524 in social rights, alleging she was employed as a live-in caregiver. Asturias lived with Shasha from 2015 until his death in April 2022. In the final years of his life, as his condition deteriorated, she cared for him at home and received approximately NIS 7,000 monthly from his account.
Asturias claimed that the family asked her to leave other jobs to care for Shasha full-time starting in February 2018, and that NIS 5,000 of her monthly payment was salary, with NIS 2,000 covering household expenses. She sought back pay for pension contributions, holiday work, vacation pay, severance, and notice pay. The defendants, including Shasha's sons Yitzhak and Tomer Shasha and his former guardian Chali Malachi, argued that Asturias and Shasha were in a continuous romantic relationship with shared living arrangements and a prenuptial agreement signed in December 2015.
During cross-examination, Asturias admitted she was Shasha's partner from 2015 until his death, contradicting her earlier claim that the relationship ended in early 2018 when her alleged employment began. The court, presided over by Ariela Gilatzer-Katz, found this admission revealed bad faith and undermined her credibility. A social worker's report from March 2018 also identified Asturias as Shasha's partner. The court noted that while they had a prenuptial agreement for separate property, this did not negate the expected support and care between partners living together, especially during illness.
The court also examined the monthly payments, which Asturias claimed were salary. However, records and testimony from Malachi indicated the funds were for the couple's shared living expenses, including groceries, clothing, and dining out. The court determined that the alleged division of the NIS 7,000 payment into salary and expenses was fabricated. Furthermore, the court found no evidence of an employer-employee relationship, as no one interviewed, set hours for, or supervised Asturias. Her claim of quitting other jobs was also disproven when she admitted to continuing work elsewhere. The court concluded that her role was that of a partner providing care within a shared household, not an employee, and that her registration as a "family caregiver" with a nursing company followed a National Insurance procedure allowing relatives to provide care without creating an employment relationship.
Asturias has the right to appeal to the National Labor Court within 30 days. The ruling highlights the strict scrutiny applied when distinguishing between mutual assistance in a partnership and formal employment, especially when individuals live together.