Looks like Kim Kardashian will have a chance to put all that law knowledge to use. Seven former staff members are suing the billionaire over work conditions. And from claims of late pay to no meal breaks, Kimmy's got quite a lot to say for herself.
The seven former staffers of the $60 million Hidden Hills mansion didn't hold back in their claims. According to them, the middle Kardashian sister held back on wages for tax purposes (without sending it over to the government) and denied overtime pay. But that's not all: Other claims included workers being obligated to work through meal breaks. And in one extreme case, a 16-year-old summer staffer stated he was forced to work past the max hours for underage employees in the state of California.
Andrew, Christopher and Andrew Jr. Ramirez, Aron Cabrea, Rene Ernesto Flores, Jesse Fernandez, and Robert Araiza put their names on the suit. They sought representation from Kim Legal, and their lawyer was also selected for a case involving Kanye's former employees. The firm's Frank Kim spoke to the Daily Mail and hinted that this might only be the tip of the iceberg. “Wage theft and other workplace violations are a widespread problem in Los Angeles," the lawyer said.
He continued, "My firm is currently investigating other potential violations against these defendants, as well as other powerful families and businesses on behalf of everyday workers." Those are some heavy claims! But what does Kim have to say? Well, Page Six reached a representative of Kardashian's, who was quick to stick up for the mom of four. According to the statement, the seven workers were "hired and paid through a third-party vendor." The spokesperson went on to add that the reality TV star was not involved in the agreements between the vendor and staff.
“Kim has never not paid a vendor for their services and hopes that the issue between these workers and the vendor who hired them can be amicably resolved soon,” the statement continued. With no official word from the Skims' owner herself, some were suspicious of the validity of the claims. Could this be headed to trial or a settlement? Be sure to check back with us on this developing case.
Related
