Do you agree with this judge?

100% agree with the judge and I think the narrator is a pig.

He signed the contract. He owes her the money. What am I missing? The fact that he was banging her is irrelevant and quite frankly a bonus for him.

I agree with the judgement. The contract is clear about the travel expenses etc.

How can you be confused on this. She has a contract they both signed. If he agreed to pay her for travel and overtime for watching the daughter and he states he was very busy with his work on the trip that means she was busy working too. She doesn’t not get paid for taking care of his kid just because she sleeps with him. If you date your auto mechanic and they fix your car at the agreed rate you pay them. Even if you slept with them. 🤷‍♀️🤦‍♀️ unbelievable take that she doesn’t deserve the money just because he upgraded the hotel room or bought her things… that’s on him.. he should have made it clear it was a vacation and had text messages backing up that this was not a work trip

Badly acted, but yes she deserved nanny payments. The narrator makes it sound like if you buy dinner, you get sex.

The contract is where the law stands, how are you interpreting it? The contract stated that any work done after hours would be paid at that higher rate. The 15 minutes spent "hanky panky", she never charged for, it was the time before and after that she is in court about.

I absolutely agree with the judge. There is a contract in place, where payment is clearly defined. I did not hear anything in the young ladies testimony that indicated she wanted payment for the extracurricular activity between the sheets. The guy commenting is not too bright.

It was straightforward, he agreed to contract and terms.

100% agree with the judge. She gets full payment for the contracted hours. The bonus on the side was in his favor not hers. 😂🤣😂

Some women are absolutely diabolical. She thought she could be a prostitute, under the guise of a nanny. You can’t be both honey.

Sleeping with the nanny doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay her wages, pre-agreed upon in a signed contract. The rest was extra he should just be grateful for. This Act as if predatory men don’t know what they’re doing is lame.

100% agree with the judge! They had a contract that didn't mention anything about reimbursed expenses (like dinners or sex), and she was working. Sorry, but the judges ruling was just.

Hanky Panky does not make the sighed agreement null and void. I just had a contractor come to Hawaii to finish a remodel. He lived in my house for a month while I was gone, I paid his flight, I paided his time. He had a vacation in Hawaii he still got paid what was agreed on.

I think she needs to get her regular rate for an 8 hour day and time and a half for watching the daughter over 8 hours a day. Once the child was in bed, stop the wage clock and start the free time.

Yup. Wouldn’t be any different if you had a fling with your employer at the office. You don’t stop paying an employee because you’re sleeping with her. When they came back from Hawaii, would he still expect free child care because they’re in a “relationship”?

The judge was correct. While in Hawaii, while he was working, she was expected to be the nanny. Anf she was. That makes it a work trip, and she gets the extra pay. What she does on her free time, including knocking boots with her employer, is immaterial to the facts of the case.

He hired a nanny and cried in her shoulder, the judge saw this was a companionate person being took advantage of…

Oh Gabriel, you are a sexist pig and your commentary is moronic. No wonder you’re confused. The judge is correct. What qualifications do you have to comment on court cases anyhow?

I’ve watched the whole thing. You have to focus on the contract - the money he needs to pay is entirely engaged with the care of the daughter. She’s not being paid for the hours she spent just with him! The contract’s very clear about remuneration and that’s the basis of ruling.

If a secretary slept with the boss and she actually worked overtime not played overtime, she would still have to be paid. They had a contract that she would get a certain amount for travel. She should’ve been paid..

Whats confusing? She was paid what the contract stipulated. I agree with the judge. I think the confusion arouse from what she meant by overtime, she didn't mean the sex, she meant the nannying. Plus the $200 a day. Pretty straightforward case.

This commentator is not as smart as he thinks he is...the girl is asking for the extra $200 a day that's due to her for travelling as part of her work. In the travel, her work is still 9 - 6 wages+ $200 per day. She's not asking for anything after 6 but he's really trying to make

She’s right. He was trying to reduce expenditures. I feel bad for his kid.

Contract is contract. So what she is honey she is an adult.

A guy watching judge Judy and talking about it like a little old lady. The internet is weird man. Why’s this happening,

Totally agree with the judge

This dude (the commentator) is such a fuckin misogynist. He basically calls the woman a prostitute and in the same breath thinks she should accept payment in dick.

I disagree with the commentator. That was a work trip regardless of what they did after she was off of work she still traveled and worked.

the travel expense is owed regardless, because the fact that she traveled means that her free time is constrained to what can be done in the new location, thus she is owed compensation for the loss of freedom regarding her free time.

100%. She had a contract and the guy felt that since they were hanky pankying it he didn’t owe her. You are so far off on your summation. She did her job and needs to be paid as per contract. Simple law 101.

The judge is right because the man both of them were enjoying but that's , "a void ab initio" because they didn't agree on it, it's neither express nor implied therefore the original contract still stands & she deserves renumeration.there was no consensus ad idem.

Yes, there is a contract. She did the work. The sex is irrelevant.

The extracurricular activity is irrelevant: they have a contract and he owes her the money.

Really think the girl is taking him a run for his money?? There is a contract.. I bet he slept with her before they went away and fulfilled the contract, why would it be different when they were away? Especially if there’s a clause for overnights away from home