Megan K. Mechak
Wed., Jan. 21, 2026
A recent federal court decision centers on a home health aide who sued an elderly woman and her two sons for alleged wage violations. The case is Kraska v. Pieciak, and it is Case No. 25-cv-13610 (MEF) (SDA), pending in the District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiff, Teodozja Kraska, claimed she was not paid the wages and overtime required under her employment agreement, prompting her to bring federal and state wage‑and‑hour claims, as well as breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims.
Plaintiff Provided Around-the-Clock Care for an Elderly Woman
According to the complaint, Kraska provided around‑the‑clock care to an elderly woman with Alzheimer’s disease, often working approximately 18 hours per day, seven days a week. Despite these long hours, she alleged she was neither paid overtime nor compensated for all hours worked. The defendants disputed the number of hours she worked, and asserted that she had received the full wages due.
Plaintiff Claimed She was Not Paid for All Hours Work or Overtime
Legally, the defendants argued that Kraska’s federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim was barred by the “companionship services” exemption to that law. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 213(a) (15), the FLSA does not apply to people who “provide companionship services for individuals who (because of age or infirmity) are unable to care for themselves.” The court rejected this argument at the dismissal stage, emphasizing that exemptions are affirmative defenses the employer must prove—and that the complaint did not show the exemption clearly applied. In fact, the plaintiff’s allegations that she spent most of her time providing direct care were enough for the claim to proceed.
The defendants also challenged plaintiff’s state wage‑law, contract, and unjust‑enrichment claims, but the court again found their arguments insufficient. The complaint alleged that the sons were parties to the employment agreement and failed to pay wages owed, making dismissal inappropriate. And although unjust‑enrichment claims cannot duplicate a contract claim, the defendants did not explain why duplication existed here. Ultimately, the court denied the motion to dismiss in full, allowing the plaintiff’s claims to move forward.
MSE represents workers, including home health care workers, who are not paid in accordance with the law. If you think you are experiencing an issue similar to the one involved in this lawsuit, please reach out to us for a free consultation. MSE can help you understand your rights and options.
