Case Background
This class action wage dispute arose in the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford, docketed as X07-HHD-CV-23-6174375-S. Thato Rankiritlane, a live-in caregiver, sued her former employer, Love and Caring Homecare Agency LLC (LACHCA), and the company's owner and principal, Charlotte Y. Darko, for unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act (CMWA), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-58 et seq. The complaint was filed on September 13, 2023, with a return date of October 24, 2023. The case was later transferred to the Complex Litigation Docket.
Cause
Rankiritlane alleged the Defendants paid her and other live-in caregivers a flat daily rate for 24-hour shifts without any overtime compensation. She claimed the Defendants improperly excluded eight hours of sleep time from each shift without a written agreement, failed to pay for meal periods during which caregivers were required to work, and did not include the reasonable value of food and lodging when computing the overtime rate. She also brought individual claims for unpaid sleep interruption hours, alleging the client woke her nightly and the Defendants refused to compensate her for that time.
Injury
LACHCA hired Rankiritlane on June 5, 2022, and assigned her to live at the Watertown, Connecticut home of a 94-year-old client named Barbara, who suffered from a severe medical condition. Rankiritlane provided personal care services — bathing, grooming, toileting, light housekeeping, transfers, medication reminders, meal preparation, safety checks, and recreational activities. She worked five days per week and sometimes seven days per week, with each shift lasting a full 24 hours. Her employment ended on May 28, 2023. The Defendants initially paid her $177 per day, raised that to $184 per day in August 2022, and later increased it to $194 per day after she complained she was caring for both Barbara and Barbara's husband simultaneously. Despite working well over 40 hours per week, the Defendants never paid her any overtime. The client also regularly woke her during the night for example, at 2 AM and again at 4 AM crying in pain and needing help with toileting. Rankiritlane texted Charlotte Darko about these nighttime disruptions, but the Defendants never paid her for those interruption hours.
Damages Sought
Rankiritlane sought double the full amount of unpaid minimum and overtime wages under Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 31-68(a)(1)(A), compensation for all sleep interruption hours at the overtime rate, interest at 12% per annum on unpaid wages under § 31-68(a)(4), reasonable attorney's fees and costs, class certification on behalf of all current and former live-in caregivers employed by the Defendants in Connecticut from September 13, 2021, through September 13, 2023, and any additional relief the Court deemed equitable. The statement of amount in demand specified damages exceeding $2,500, exclusive of interest and costs. In her complaint, Rankiritlane calculated that for a single bi-weekly pay period (August 28 through September 10, 2022), the Defendants underpaid her by $761.36 in base overtime and owed an additional $858.84 when the value of food and lodging was factored into the regular rate.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Thato Rankiritlane, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq.
Defendant(s): Love and Caring Homecare Agency LLC; Charlotte Y. Darko
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Kay Wilson
· Experts for Defendant(s): Matthew R. Thompson
Claims
Overtime Wage Violations (Counts One and Two — Class Claims)
Rankiritlane argued the Defendants violated the CMWA by paying live-in caregivers a flat day rate without any overtime for hours exceeding forty per workweek. She used the pay period of August 28 through September 10, 2022 as an example. During that period, she worked seven days per week at $194 per day, totaling $2,715 for the two workweeks. The Defendants credited her with only 13 hours per day — 91 hours per workweek. She contended her regular rate should have been $14.92 per hour ($1,358 divided by 91 hours), and the Defendants owed overtime at 1.5 times that rate for the 51 hours beyond forty, amounting to $1,141.38 in overtime pay that was never paid. She further argued the Defendants failed to add the reasonable value of food ($76.16 per week under 29 C.F.R. § 552.100(c)) and lodging ($54.38 per week under 29 C.F.R. § 552.100(d)) to the cash wage before calculating the regular rate. When those values were included, the proper regular rate rose to $20.54 per hour, and the overtime premium should have been $30.80 per hour instead of the $22.38 per hour the Defendants implicitly paid. Count One was directed at LACHCA and Count Two at Charlotte Darko individually. Other live-in caregivers named in the complaint — China, Gertrude, and Brenda — were paid the same flat day rate structure.
Sleep Time and Meal Period Exclusions (Counts One and Two — Class Claims)
Rankiritlane alleged the Defendants excluded eight hours of sleep time from each 24-hour shift without any written agreement with the employees, violating Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 31-76b(2)(D). She also alleged the Defendants failed to pay for meal periods because the caregivers ate meals with the clients in order to monitor them, meaning they were required to work through those periods under Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 31-76b(2)(A). She further claimed the Defendants never furnished proper weekly paystubs showing total hours worked, the hourly rate, straight-time pay, and separate overtime pay, as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 31-13a.
Sleep Interruption (Counts Three and Four — Individual Claims)
Rankiritlane brought individual claims alleging the client routinely woke her during the night. She cited a text message she sent to Darko at 2:26 AM on September 30, 2022, reporting she called 911 because Barbara was stuck on a chair and could not get up. She cited another text on January 29, 2023, at 2:26 AM, complaining that Barbara was not sleeping at night and requesting Darko bring overnight relief staff because being up 24 hours was too much. She argued the Defendants knew about these frequent interruptions throughout her employment but never paid her for the interrupted sleep time as required by statute. Count Three was directed at LACHCA and Count Four at Darko individually.
Defense
The Defendants admitted that Love and Caring Homecare Agency employed Rankiritlane and provided homemaker and companion services in the Windsor, Waterbury, and Norwich areas of Connecticut. They denied that Charlotte Darko was individually an employer of the Plaintiff, maintaining she was only the principal of the LLC. They denied the overtime and wage violation allegations across all counts, denied failing to pay proper wages, and denied the class allegations. Regarding the sleep interruption claims, the Defendants stated they lacked sufficient knowledge or information to confirm or deny the allegations and left Rankiritlane to her proof.
The Defendants raised two special defenses. Under the good faith defense, they argued Darko took active steps to learn the law, relied on a certified public accountant to manage the business, and in 2019 fully cooperated with an audit conducted by Luz Rodriguez, an employee of the Connecticut Department of Labor. That audit reviewed employee compensation and wage rates and found only a minor discrepancy of approximately sixteen dollars for one employee. The Defendants maintained they reasonably relied on the Labor Department's guidance that their compensation practices were acceptable. Under the failure to mitigate defense, the Defendants argued Rankiritlane signed a "Timesheet and Clock-In/Out Policy" on or about June 1, 2022, which required her to clock in and out at all times and to accurately record her hours. They contended she failed to follow this policy and also failed to timely report interruptions to her sleeping or eating time, which increased the risk of allegedly insufficient compensation and would have significantly reduced the claimed damages.
Jury Verdict
The case proceeded to a jury trial in the Complex Litigation Docket of the Connecticut Superior Court. On February 18, 2026, the jury returned a verdict in favor of both Defendants Love and Caring Homecare Agency LLC and Charlotte Y. Darko and against the Plaintiff, Thato Rankiritlane. The jury found that while Rankiritlane's employer required her to be present at the client's home for all 24 hours during each live-in shift, she failed to prove that her actual hours worked exceeded forty in any given Sunday-through-Saturday workweek. Because the Plaintiff could not establish the overtime threshold, the jury ruled in favor of the Defendants on all counts. No damages were awarded. The Honourable Elizabeth Stewart accepted the verdict at 11:58 AM on February 18, 2026. The foreperson, John E. Wilber, signed the verdict form on the same date.
Court Documents
