4. Disproportionate nurse-patient ratio. The sponsored nurses were made to take care of 40 to 60 patients, doing all the nursing duties, from wound care, to giving medicines, to personal care, and even going with the patients for doctors’ visits. Of course, they were also expected to do their paper work. Sometimes, the nurses were also made to take care of patients in two different wings at the same time. In one facility, the nurses were even made to throw the garbage. The nurses complained that with the number of patients assigned to each one of them, they could not give quality patient care;

5. The nurses were given work responsibilities as nurse managers when they were not even fully licensed or registered nurses yet. Most of the sponsored nurses started working as nurses with limited permits, meaning, they had to work under the supervision of registered nurses. However, the nursing home facilities gave them work responsibilities as charge nurses or nurse managers, without the supervision of any registered nurse. This situation did not just endanger the lives of their patients, but it likewise put the nurses at risk of being sanctioned by the State Board of Nursing;

6. Most of the nurses started working as medical clerks, earning $10 to $14 an hour. This was of course a violation of their employment contracts and federal labor and immigration rules, which guaranteed them salary rates equal to or greater than the prevailing wage rates or the normal rates being received by US workers in the facilities they were working at;

7. The number of paid working hours was unilaterally reduced by Prompt/Sentosa Services from 37.5 hours to 35 hours. Although the nurses were working at least 40 hours a week, as in fact, some were working more than 40 hours a week just to be able to finish their paperwork, they were only paid 35 hours a week;

8. Most of the nurses were not paid night shift differentials and holiday pay;

9. Some of the nurses complained that their and their family members’ green cards were unreasonably withheld by Mr. Luyun. The nurses had to follow up with the Immigration Service for their actual green cards. Having been informed by the Immigration Service that their green cards were already sent to their sponsors, they told Mr. Luyun about this, and it was only at then that their green cards were issued to them;

10. Some of the nurses complained that they were not provided with decent living accommodations upon their arrival. Some had to sleep on the cold floor; some had to alternate in using the beds; and most of them complained that their staff house was not properly heated. In fact, two of them who had to sleep on makeshift beds in the garage, because there was no more space for them inside the house;

11. Salaries were often paid late. In fact, the nurses’ salaries were almost always not correct in terms of number of hours paid. The nurses had to complain several times before their salaries were paid correctly.

12. Contrary to SRA’s promises made in the Philippines, there were some nurses who were not reimbursed their licensure and certification expenses, as well as their fare from the Philippines to New York.

NSB: When did the case start? When did the legal battle start?

AFV: Let it be put on record that the nurses tried to discuss their concerns and issues with Mr. Luyun and Mr. Philipson, but their concerns were never addressed to their satisfaction. Thus, two nurses went to my law office for legal consultation as to their rights as immigrant workers and as parties to an employment contract. Two days later, I got a phone call from the Philippine Consulate, asking me to help two other nurses. These two groups of nurses did not know each other, but they had a common recruiter and common problems regarding their employment arrangements. The four nurses became 27 (the original 27, from whence came the 27 in Sentosa 27++) in one week’s time. I was informed that there were more Filipino nurses who would join them, as there were allegedly hundred Filipino nurses working at the various facilities managed by Sentosa Care LLC. In consultation with the Philippine Consulate, I advised the nurses to file discrimination charges against their respective sponsoring or contracting employers with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices. I also advised them about their rights as immigrant workers and as aggrieved parties to breached employment contracts. I advised them that considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding their employment, they were actually employed by Prompt Nursing Employment Agency, doing business as Sentosa Services. And there being no employment contracts between them and Prompt/Sentosa Services, their employment relationship was at-will, meaning, they could resign anytime, in the same way that their employer could terminate their employment anytime.

On the night after I filed the discrimination charges on April 6, 2006, Filipino nurses working at one facility resigned. The following day, nurses working at four other facilities resigned. A few days later, Mr. Philipson and his Sentosa Care LLC and the nursing home facilities began their retaliatory actions against the nurses and against me. They got the nerve to file a civil case against the nurses for alleged breach of contract, and as against me for alleged interference of contracts. The nurses counterclaimed for breach of contracts. A few weeks later, and again in consultation with the Philippine Consulate, I filed the POEA complaints against SRA for violation of recruitment rules and regulations, specifically on misrepresentation in the recruitment process (promise of direct-hire by contracting nursing home facility as compared to what actually happened, i.e., agency hire by Prompt/Sentosa Services). The week after I filed the POEA complaints, Mr. Luyun and Mr. Philipson also filed complaints against the nurses before the POEA, for alleged non-compliance to the contracts and for alleged patient abandonment. We also found out that the nursing home facilities filed administrative complaints against the nurses before the New York State Education Department’s Office of Professional Discipline. These administrative complaints caused the nurses not to be able to work as their licenses or permits were put on hold.

 Save as PDF