*Sharon Stone and the former nanny, Erlinda T. Elemen, who is now suing her, back in 2010.
Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times reported that Sharon Stone was being sued by a former nanny. And all hell broke loose! The former live-in nanny, a Filipino woman named Erlinda T. Elemen claims that she was fired by Sharon Stone for “accepting overtime pay and repeatedly subjected to derogatory comments about her Filipino heritage and religious beliefs.” Other claims: Sharon told Elemen not to speak in front the children because Sharon didn’t want them to “talk like you.” Elemen alleged that Stone used to tell her that Filipino people were “stupid”. Sharon alleged mocked and criticized Elemen’s religious beliefs, church attendance and Bible-reading – in fact, Stone allegedly forbade Elemen from reading the Bible, which is pretty rough considering the nanny lived with Stone. Here’s more:
A key element of the suit involves accusations that Stone, best known for her roles in “Casino” and “Basic Instinct,” fired Elemen after she had been paying her overtime, said the plaintiff’s attorney, Solomon Gresen.
“Because abuses in overtime pay are common for household employees, it seems ironic that Ms. Stone initially did the right thing and paid Mrs. Elemen overtime wages, and then terminated her for accepting those same wages,” Gresen said in a statement.
According to the suit, Elemen was hired by Stone in October 2006, working as an assistant nanny caring for one of three children of the 54-year-old actress. Two years later, Eleman was promoted to head nanny and began caring for all three children, which included extensive travel and living at Stone’s home.
Elemen was fired in February 2011 when Stone learned that she was paid overtime, the suit alleges. State law requires that non-salaried employees must be paid for additional work over eight hours per day or 40 hours per week. But the suit alleges Stone found out that her staff had paid her overtime and accused Elemen of “stealing” and that it was “illegal” for her to have taken the pay, and asked for the money back.
There’s even more stuff too, if you can believe that. Elemen says that after Sharon fired her, Sharon invited her “to come back in the future to say goodbye to the children she once cared for.” When fired from her position, Stone alleged wrote Elemen an email saying: “This email will terminate your employment without cause, as of today, Friday 8, 2011. Thank you for your services. I invite you to come by and say goodbye to Laird and Quinn. Best Regards, Sharon Stone — See me for a letter of reference. SS.” Sources say Stone did pay Elemen well – around $1000 a week, but since being fired, Elemen cannot find full-time work. Elemen also filed a complaint against Sharon with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing back in February of this year, where Elemen detailed the harassment, etc.
Sharon’s spokesman, Paul Bloch, tells the LAT that the lawsuit is “frivolous” and Sharon will be “completely vindicated in court.” His full statement: “This is an absurd lawsuit that has been filed by a disgruntled ex-employee who is obviously looking to get money any way she can. After she was terminated approximately 1½ years ago, she filed claims for alleged disability and worker’s compensation. Now, she is obviously looking for another opportunity to cash in.”
So… do you believe Sharon’s side of the story (the former nanny is just looking for a payoff) or the nanny’s side of the story (Sharon is a monster)?
Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet and Pacific Coast News.
I believe it. There is something off about her.
I do too…I think she would be awful to work for.
I’ve always thought Stone seems like a nasty piece of work. This story sounds plausible to me.
Me too.
But…but…but she can’t be racist. She’s a celebutard.
Nice-looking kids, though.
I could see it, but why did the nanny stay in her service so long?
It is hard to find a job especially one which pays $1000 a week. That is great money if you lack a college education. It is not easy to switch jobs.
The nanny was a live-in worker (24/7). If you hire a helper in a staffing company, they can charge you $ 100 per day or more.
She was taking care of TWO children. That was a very good deal for a celebrity.
Eh..always give celebs the benefit of the doubt when it’s a disgruntled employee, especially one that is having trouble finding work now that her employment has been terminated. I think this might seem like the easiest way for her to cash in. That being said, Sharon Stone has always struck me as an insufferable witch. I just find something about her very off-putting.
That being said, Sharon Stone has always struck me as an insufferable witch.
That’s because she is one. The stories about her being an insufferable diva on set are legendary — like when she was shooting “King Solomon’s Mines” (or its sequel — yes, there’s a sequel to that disaster), she treated the staff so badly that some of them took revenge by peeing in her bathtub (they took turns).
P.S.: By the way, she admitted she was horrible to work with during that time because she was married to one of the producers (or director, I’m not sure) back then.
that must have been one tough gig. can’t imagine working for that woman. she seems batsh*t crazy.
I’m more apt to believe the nanny on this one, I could be completely wrong but SS seems like an insufferable woman to work with/for..
If Sharon Stone was so hard to work for, why did the nanny stay with her for almost 5 years? Why did she wait almost 2 years to file a lawsuit? Yes, I can think of saner people than Sharon Stone, but Eleman’s behaviour smacks of opportunism once the $1000/week plus board gravy train ended. What is the usual salary for live in nannies – about $250/week, I think. And was her disability claim founded, or was it dismissed as a scam?
You do realize that $250/week is $13000 annual pay which is way below the poverty line. Most domestics, live-in ones included, have families to support. I wouldn’t consider $52,000/yr a gravy boat for essentially working all day every day, which studies have shown, some employers expect, since “they’re always there.” If she was getting paid overtime, I would assume this is the case. I know something about this because I’ve studied this stuff.
Yeah, I realize it. But labour laws, at least in my jurisdiction, do not. Live in domestic workers can earn less than minimum wage (which is below the poverty line for families anyway), and the maximum hour cap is much higher also. Justification is alleged to be that live in workers do not have to pay rent, don’t pay much in food. So 52K is gold by industry standards.
Wow. You really don’t get it do you? Most of these women got families of their own. They’re actually the bread winners more often than not… Now imagine them raising other children instead of their own just so they could give their biological kids a better life… Imagine their kids growing up never getting to know their mothers coz their full time raising other women’s kids..and more often than not loving those kids as if they were her own..
Unless, you’ve actually visited a third world country and see how much these women actually have to sacrifice to give their families a better life..i think it’s best you shut it. I hope that put things into perspective for you.
Oh Vanessa, I get it. My comment merely reflected labour laws as they exist in my jurisdiction and the alleged justification that lawmakers use to implement them. I did not say that I agreed with them.
But I also did not read in this article (and I confess that I did not research any other sources about this lawsuit other than Celebrity) that this woman is a foreign domestic worker, just that she is of Filipino ancestry. The added problem for foreign domestic workers of course, is their perception that if they complain about their working conditions, they will be deported. Since this woman is using the courts, I guess I just sort of assumed that she was an American. And I haven’t read that she has kids, and really, whether she does or not, is peripheral to my opinion that there is something askew with her moral compass. So I agree with you that many foreign domestic workers are exploited in North America, and even more so in the Middle East (where I have lived and worked incidentally). I am just not convinced that Eleman is one of them.
the nanny was a live in worker (24/7) and was taking care of her TWO children. If you hire a worker through a staffing company, the charge can be $ 100 dollars a day.
in spite of her genius image in the 90’s, she’s never been the brightest bulb, she’s said stupid shit many times since then, and in the past few years she got the hollyweird crazy which happens typically to the a-listers who aren’t particularly bright. i mean she tried to get botox on the feet of her 3 year old. so i can totally buy her saying tactless stuff to her nanny and being insane all over.
I have no doubt that Stone is batshit crazy (one of the reasons I love her) and I also believe that the nanny is telling about 50% of the truth.
I think it’s a little bit of both theories. People will put up with a lot for money. Especially if their options are limited.
In any kind of live-in job like this, the employee is going to hear and see some quirky stuff from the employer. Seems to me that the nanny got fired and then couldn’t find another job, so she’s threatening a lawsuit, hoping for “go away” money.
I believe Sharon made those statements against Filipinos. Remember that she said the earthquake in China that killed hundreds of thousands people was karma.
I find it suspicious that her ex husband has full custody of their child together. What kind of mother would let that happen?
The ones who aren’t as sexist as you appear to be.
Im a nanny in San Francisco. Absolutely believe it, the way some of these mothers treat their nannies. And I’m guessing that it was an around the clock job, so $1000/ week here is really not a lot.
Before she was a “star”, the crew on one of her early movies pissed into the pool where she was to be filmed because she was so miserable to work with. Says a lot about her character.
It says worse things about the crew’s character.
la stone always brings the crazy.
I’m with the people that believe half and half. I believe that Stone said offensive things to and in front of the nanny, but there’s something off with the nanny’s story that she waited this long to file a suit. If Stone hires a “main nanny” plus “assistant nannies”, maybe the main nanny job is salaried and not hourly, and the asst. nanny positions are hourly? If that was the case, the main nanny wasn’t eligible for overtime. I worked for a company where some people didn’t want to be promoted to management/supervisor positions, b/c it was a non-union position, no overtime, etc.
I feel sorry for those children. Imagine the craziness in that household.
Mommie Dearest. She seems evil to me and always has. I believe the nanny.
I can believe it. She has had the raging bitch stigma attached to her for years.
I don’t get it. Can I go back and sue every crappy boss I’ve ever had? Obviously Stone wouldn’t have kept this lady and promoted this lady if she didn’t want her to speak in front of the children. That’s a ridiculous claim. I’m not saying Stone’s not a bitch and a pain to work for, but I don’t think that’s grounds for a lawsuit. I’ve worked for some awful supervisors.
Work though, not live.
I dunno. My mother used to be a domestic, as were tons and tons of other Caribbean ladies (in general, and that I have known personally). I don’t know the details of this case, annd it certainly isn’t universal, but for all of the legitimate progress being made, a LOT of the monied lazy might as well have ‘jump’ as their handles. It’s not all of the well-heeled families who had a huge sense of entitlement, but it was definitely enough of them when I was teaching (I used to be a piano/theory/music history teacher. Most of that time I was a full-time university student and some parents were nucking futs. Somewhere (I don’t know where because they didn’t that rumour from me), people got the idea that I worked for them ALL of the time, and ugh. No one else’s time, money or responsibilities matter. Some slag actually thought that I would agree to skip out on exams–I’m talking university midterms, because earlier that day they decided to take a helicopter to their private island a bit earlier. Then they’d get all pissy because I wouldn’t flunk out of school for their sake. Please, your no-talent, lazy-ass chimp of a child won’t practice, won’t study for exams, won’t do homework, couldn’t be bothered to show up for make-up lessons, or do their corrections. ‘She can’t cut her nails, the modelling agent and photographers said so.’ The why the shit are you even here? Of course you ripped half of your nail off, you think I’d make that kind of weirdness up? Of course, if it’s that urgent to jet off now, feel free to pick me up from school–there’s more than an hour right there. Nope Not everyone acted that way, but enough did, and they did, they REALLY did. Never underestimate the power of the upper hand, because some slags are CRAZY.
I used
Please stop with the large ads at the bottom of the photos! They are sooo intrusive!
I HATE THEM SO F…KING MUCH!!!