07/11/2023
But such a campaign ad became less likely after Attorney General Maura Healey announced in early August that Education First had paid $160,000 in restitution and penalties for various wage act violations, including misclassifying employees hired to teach online English courses as independent contractors. That illegal misclassification allowed EF to dodge its employer share of F**A and Medicare taxes and rendered the employees ineligible for the protections of the unemployment insurance and worker’s compensation programs. (These employees worked at an EF office in Brighton, not in Cambridge, and the news of EF’s “Top Places to Work” award was a surprise.)
And as it turns out, the attorney general’s suit is not the only workplace litigation in which Education First is a party: the company is also a defendant in a class-action lawsuit brought by other employees alleging violations of the overtime law, and it’s a plaintiff in a case about au pairs, young people who come to the U.S. for a year to further their education and help their host families with child care. EF’s Cultural Care division, which matches au pairs with hosts, is seeking to exempt au pairs from the “Domestic Workers Bill of Rights,” a recent state law that makes domestic workers eligible for minimum wage and overtime pay and limits the deductions their employers can take for lodging and meals.
A federal judge ruled against EF last year, rejecting the company’s claims that the federal minimum wage (of $7.25 per hour) should apply to au pairs because of their status as visa holders and because the higher state minimum wage would make the program economically unfeasible. Noting that low-cost child care was not a goal of the federal law creating the au pair program, the judge suggested that a simple solution for the host families would be to set the number of hours of child care they require below the weekly maximum of 45, thereby freeing the au pairs to spend more (unpaid) time pursuing their cultural and educational interests. EF has appealed that ruling.
Because Education First had certified in its tax credit application that it would not unlawfully misclassify workers as independent contractors, its payment of restitution and penalties to settle the Attorney General’s suit could, theoretically at least, place its tax credit in jeopardy. The law permits the revocation of a credit upon a determination that the company is in “material noncompliance” with a representation it made in its application.
A CAMBRIDGE COMPANY, Education First, is a big winner in the race for state business tax credits. The privately owned Swedish company now occupies two buildings (and, thanks to its tax credit, will soon occupy three) in the city’s redeveloped NorthPoint area abutting Charlestown and East Somervill...