Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE STATUS—D. Ariz.: Caregiver was employee of home health provider, not independent contractor, (Aug 28, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The owner claimed that the plaintiff participated in approximately three days of shadowing, performed no independent or billable care, and never completed onboarding.

A federal district court in Arizona granted a caregiver’s motion for summary judgment as to her claims that she was an employee owed wages for 38 hours of work. After the caregiver filed this lawsuit against the owner of a home health care provider, asserting minimum-wage claims under the FLSA and Arizona Minimum Wage Act (AMWA), both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The owner argued that the caregiver was not an employee because she agreed to work as an independent contractor and never completed onboarding paperwork. The court pointed out that because the owner exercised direct economic and operational control over every material aspect of the caregiver’s work, the owner was her employer under the FLSA and AMWA (Monge v. Everwell Home Health Care LLC, No. CV-24-03007-PHX-KML (D. Ariz. Aug. 19, 2026)).

Caregiver services. The employer, Everwell Home Health Care, provides nonmedical in-home care, including assistance with bathing, cooking, and cleaning. Clients inform Everwell of the services, days, and hours they need care, and Everwell decides whether it can provide the requested care and then pairs caregivers with clients. Clients pay Everwell, and Everwell separately agrees with caregivers on their compensation. The owner of Everwell personally determines whether the company will accept a caregiver’s requested rate. Clients generally supply the household materials used to provide care, while Everwell requires caregivers to possess CPR and first-aid certifications.

In August 2024, the plaintiff was hired by Everwell to provide caregiving services. On August 12, 2024, the employer told the plaintiff in an onboarding email that she would be compensated as a “1099 Independent Contractor.” Everwell classified the plaintiff as an independent contractor because it classified all its caregivers as contractors rather than employees during their first 30 days on the job.

Employee profile and schedule. On August 13, the employer set up the plaintiff’s employee profile in its AxisCare Mobile application. The plaintiff was instructed to download the application and create an account before her “next shift.” It was explained that the application would display the plaintiff’s schedule, including the time and location of each member visit.

On August 14, the owner and the plaintiff met. The plaintiff expressed her confusion because she “didn’t see the 3rd client on [her] schedule and it’s not 40 hours?” The owner provided the plaintiff with the address and hours for the third client that she would take on later that week.

Over the next week, the owner continued directing the details of the plaintiff’s day-to-day work, including the other caregivers with whom she would work, the clients she would visit, the timing and scheduling of those visits, and how she should document her work in AxisCare.

On August 20, the owner addressed the plaintiff’s continued assignments and rate of pay. She told the plaintiff that her rate was $19 per hour for a route involving three members. The owner also explained that if the plaintiff could not continue caring for one client, she might have to “let [[the plaintiff]] go,” give away the plaintiff’s entire schedule, or reduce her rate of pay.

Payment request. On August 23, the plaintiff asked when the employer would send payment for her first 16 hours of work and an additional $50 for cleaning a bathroom, and said all records concerning her work were saved in AxisCare. The owner did not respond. On August 24, the plaintiff requested $354 through Apple Cash, and the owner once again did not respond.

On September 6, the plaintiff requested $720 from the owner and identified the request as payment for 38 hours of work. The owner responded that Everwell had emailed the plaintiff requesting a mailing address so it could mail her last paycheck, but the email had been returned as undeliverable. The plaintiff provided her address again and requested payment for 38 hours at $19 per hour. The plaintiff followed up on September 11 and September 16, stating she had not received a check.

Shadowing. The owner now claims the plaintiff participated in approximately three days of shadowing, performed no independent or billable care, and never completed onboarding. She testified caregivers generally were required to complete at least seven days of shadowing. The owner maintains the plaintiff never completed this process.

Lawsuit. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the owner and her spouse, asserting minimum-wage claims under the FLSA and Arizona Minimum Wage Act and a wage-payment claim against Everwell under the Arizona Wage Act (AWA). The owner and the plaintiff both moved for summary judgment.

Minimum-wage claims. The plaintiff asserted minimum-wage claims against the owner under the FLSA and AMWA. Both claims require determining whether the plaintiff was an employee, whether the owner was her employer, whether the applicable statute covered the plaintiff’s work, and whether the owner failed to pay the plaintiff for compensable time.

Employment relationship. The owner first argued that the plaintiff was not an employee because she agreed to work as an independent contractor and never completed Everwell’s onboarding paperwork.

Whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor turns on a number of nonexclusive factors. The economic realities of the circumstances demonstrated that the plaintiff was an employee, according to the court. The record showed that the owner exercised substantial control over the plaintiff’s work: she selected the clients she would visit, determined the time and location of those visits, set and adjusted her schedule, established her hourly rate, and directed how she would document her work. The owner also warned the plaintiff that declining one member might result in the loss of her schedule or a reduction in her hourly rate. The plaintiff’s compensation was set by the hour, and she had no opportunity for profit or risk of loss based on decisions she could control. Her work required only basic CPR and first-aid certifications—and she made no capital investments and employed no helpers.

The owner’s assertions that the plaintiff could decline assignments, control her availability, and work elsewhere did not outweigh the remaining factors or establish that the plaintiff exercised managerial skill or operated an independent business. Therefore, the plaintiff was an employee.

Owner’s status as employer. The remaining question is whether the owner herself was one of the plaintiff’s employers. An individual who exercises control over the nature and structure of the employment relationship, or economic control over that relationship, is personally an employer under the FLSA. Relevant considerations include whether the individual had power to hire and fire employees, supervised or controlled work schedules and employment conditions, determined the rate and method of payment, and maintained employment records.

The owner easily satisfied that standard. She did not merely own Everwell. She personally decided to hire the plaintiff, trained her, assigned her to clients, controlled her schedule, set and adjusted her hourly rate, and possessed authority to end the relationship. Because the owner exercised direct economic and operational control over every material aspect of the plaintiff’s work, she was therefore her employer under the FLSA and AMWA.

Minimum wage liability. The next questions were whether the plaintiff’s work was covered by the FLSA and AMWA, whether the activities she performed were compensable, and whether the owner failed to pay the required minimum wage for that work.

Employees covered under Section 206(f)(2) must receive at least the applicable federal minimum wage for their domestic-service work. The AMWA similarly requires employers to pay employees at least the applicable Arizona minimum wage.

In seeking unpaid wages, an employee initially must prove she performed work for which she was not properly compensated.

• First, the plaintiff was covered under the FLSA as a domestic-service employee. She provided services of a household nature in clients’ private homes, including purchasing food, cleaning, assisting with showering, and providing other personal care. She worked 38 hours during the nine-day period from August 14 through August 22 and therefore necessarily performed more than eight hours of domestic service during at least one workweek.

Despite the owner’s argument that the plaintiff was “shadowing during incomplete onboarding” and therefore performed no compensable work, the court concluded that this characterization did not make the time noncompensable. Moreover, the court pointed out that training time may be excluded only if attendance occurs outside the employee’s regular working hours, is voluntary, is unrelated to the employee’s job, and involves no productive work. To the extent that the owner labeled the plaintiff as a “trainee” to suggest her shadowing was noncompensable, that argument failed.

The case is No. CV-24-03007-PHX-KML.

Judge: Lanham, K.

Attorneys: Christopher Jacob Bendau (Law Offices of Christopher Jacob Bendau) for Alexis Monge.

Companies: Everwell Home Health Care LLC

Cases: EmployeeStatus WageHour MinimumWage StateLawClaims ArizonaNews