When the domestic worker sues: in 9 of 10 rulings the household has to pay
Clino read 382 rulings published on entscheidsuche.ch in which a domestic worker and a private household dispute wages, overtime or a dismissal. In 126 of 141 disputes the household had to pay. The costliest misunderstanding is not overtime but a wage that was below the minimum wage for years. Most rulings come from Geneva and the Federal Supreme Court; first-instance rulings and settlements are almost entirely missing.
Summary
When a family hires a cleaner, a nanny or a carer, it becomes an employer. What happens when a dispute arises has so far been barely studied. For this study, Clino searched the ruling index entscheidsuche.ch, read 382 rulings and merged 208 employment-law rulings between domestic workers and private households into 141 disputes with a decision on the merits.
The result is clear: the court almost always awarded the worker money, but usually not everything. The median worker received 44% of what she had claimed.
What households fail on is surprising. Overtime is hard to prove; the court rejected it in 34 of 82 cases. Back pay up to the minimum wage in the cantonal standard employment contract, by contrast, succeeded in 67 of 82 cases. That needs no timesheet, only the wage and the contract.
The household almost always pays
Private households lost 103 of 116 disputes in whole or in part, households of diplomats and international officials 23 of 25. An appeal rarely helped: of 76 appeals by employers, 21 reduced the amount. Of 46 appeals by workers, 19 improved her result.
One dispute = one case across all courts; we count the last ruling on the merits. Published rulings only, mostly from Geneva and the Federal Supreme Court; first-instance rulings and settlements are almost entirely missing.
Source: published rulings (entscheidsuche.ch), analysis by Clino, October 2026
What a lost case costs
In 112 disputes the ruling states an amount. Half were below CHF 38,467, and in 23 cases the gross amount exceeded CHF 100,000. In 34 cases the court deducts the net wages already paid from the gross amount; leaving that out, the household owed a median of around CHF 35,472 extra (estimate), and more than CHF 100,000 extra in 14 cases. On top come interest of 5% a year, court costs and social insurance contributions on the back pay.
Median CHF 38,467; half of the amounts lie between CHF 15,075 and 91,441. Gross, without interest and court costs. Where the court deducts net wages already paid, the gross amount is counted.
Source: published rulings (entscheidsuche.ch), analysis by Clino, October 2026
The risk is not overtime but the minimum wage
Clino read the 112 disputes with claims for overtime, presence time or minimum wage a second time. The worker has to prove overtime (Art. 321c CO). In 34 of 82 cases she failed, for instance because she had no notes or witnesses confirmed only part of the hours. In one case the appeal court struck out an overtime claim of over CHF 240,000 entirely.
With the minimum wage it is the other way round. It is set out in the canton’s standard employment contract, and the wage is usually undisputed. The back pay succeeded in 67 of 82 cases, a median of CHF 34,321 for around 2.5 years. In total, the courts awarded around CHF 2,900,000 for minimum-wage differences in these cases, compared with around CHF 1,600,000 for overtime.
Presence time and night watch for live-in carers succeeded in 17 of 23 cases. The number of cases is small, the amounts are not: one case involved around 11,900 hours of night watch.
Second reading of 112 disputes with one of these claims; we count cases where the court ruled on the claim.
Source: published rulings (entscheidsuche.ch), analysis by Clino, October 2026
The ten highest back payments
The highest amounts almost always concern years of work in a household at a wage far below the minimum wage, often without a permit and without a written contract.
- #1CHF 551,943
Cook and butler at an ambassador’s residence; the legal employer was the State
8 years
Dismissed after asking for the recommended Geneva wage. Years of overtime and Sunday work had to be paid.
Ruling 2025 · Federal Supreme Court (Geneva case)
- #2CHF 345,821
Valet and housekeeper (a couple)
lived in · for two people
Pay far below the Geneva standard contract, board and lodging left out of the overtime rate, and finally driven straight to the airport.
Ruling 2000 · Federal Supreme Court (Geneva case)
- #3CHF 276,282
Domestic worker
7.5 years
Hired orally, paid CHF 2,000 to 2,500 a month in cash, below the minimum of the Geneva standard contract.
Ruling 2021 · Geneva, Court of Justice · CHF 437,422 gross, less net wages already paid
- #4CHF 246,189
Teenager, housework and childcare
2 years · lived in
Brought to Switzerland on a visitor visa, no wage, a mattress in the corridor to sleep on.
Ruling 2014 · Geneva, Court of Justice
- #5CHF 163,036
Carer of an elderly woman
5.75 years · lived in
CHF 2,000 to 2,100 gross a month. The standard contract’s night-watch supplement was missing for about 11,900 hours, around CHF 90,000 in all.
Ruling 2023 · Federal Supreme Court (Geneva case)
- #6CHF 154,043
Nanny for two children
7 years · lived in
Not registered, a wage far below the minimum. The amount includes CHF 20,000 in moral damages.
Ruling 2010 · Vaud, Cantonal Court
- #7CHF 142,297
Domestic worker in an international civil servant’s household
The summons and the judgment were left uncollected at the post office. The court ruled in absentia and the objection came too late.
Ruling 2006 · Geneva, Court of Justice
- #8CHF 140,299
Housekeeper in a villa
5.4 years · lived in
No permit, seven days a week when the family was in Geneva, CHF 1,600 to 2,600 a month. A signed waiver of further claims was void.
Ruling 2017 · Geneva, Court of Justice · CHF 160,699 gross, less net wages already paid
- #9CHF 126,000
Carer of a widowed elderly man
6 years
Cared for him day and night. After his death the heir could not prove that any wage had been paid.
Ruling 2006 · Federal Supreme Court (Geneva case)
- #10CHF 125,292
Housekeeper and her partner in a villa
2 years · for two people
Hired orally by the man of the house. His later wife had to pay too: she had used their services daily and given instructions.
Ruling 2010 · Federal Supreme Court (Geneva case)
Amounts: what the household owed on top of the wages already paid, gross, without interest and costs. Where the ruling works gross minus net, the difference is Clino’s estimate. All cases anonymised.
The five mistakes that cost households the most
1.Pay below the minimum wage
67 of 82In 61 disputes the wage was below the standard contract. The back pay up to the minimum succeeded in 67 of 82 cases, a median of CHF 34,321. Oral deals and “family help” do not protect: the minimum applies anyway.
Minimum wages by canton2.No time records
1 of 47Where the ruling mentions time records, the household had kept them in 1 of 47 cases. In 42 of 112 cases the court estimated the working hours itself, from witnesses, diaries and the worker’s messages.
Time sheet for overtime3.Overtime and Sundays
48 of 82Overtime was claimed in 85 disputes. It succeeded fully or in part in 48 of 82 cases, a median of CHF 14,235. The burden of proof lies with the worker, and without her own notes she often fails. Even so, the largest award in the study, CHF 551,943 gross, was mostly overtime.
Working hours in a nanny contract4.The carer’s presence time
17 of 23Night watch and on-call time of a live-in carer is working time when she has to be available. The claim succeeded in 17 of 23 cases. In one Geneva case the court deducted a quarter of each 24-hour shift as rest and had the rest paid at the standard contract’s hourly rate.
Employment contract for home care5.No written contract
53 of 141In 53 of the 141 disputes there was no written contract. The cantonal standard contract then applies with its maximum hours, premiums and minimum wages, and the dispute turns on what was agreed orally.
Employment contract for household help
Surprising findings
More and more carers in court
Among the disputes with a ruling from 2000–2009, 3 of 37 concerned the care of elderly people, 8%. In 2020–2026 it was 12 of 40, 30%. The numbers are small, but the direction fits the growth of 24-hour care at home.
Those who do not respond lose by default
One household left the court’s summons and judgment uncollected at the post office. The Geneva court ruled in absentia, the objection came too late, and the worker was awarded around CHF 142,000. A signed waiver of further claims did not help another household either: during the employment relationship and for one month after it, the worker cannot waive mandatory claims (Art. 341 CO).
56 criminal rulings
Besides the civil cases, Clino found 56 criminal rulings against households: 32 concern usury, 31 employment without a permit, 15 human trafficking. In 25 at least one person was convicted. In Zurich, employing a cleaner without a permit for around eleven months cost a suspended fine of 60 daily penalty units at CHF 230.
What the numbers do not show
The study counts published rulings, not conflicts. Geneva systematically publishes the rulings of its appeal chamber for employment law, around 100 to 140 a year; 71 of the 141 disputes therefore come from Geneva, 35 end before the Federal Supreme Court, 18 come from Vaud, 9 from Ticino and 3 from Zurich. This is not a ranking of the cantons where most disputes occur. Many disputes end in a settlement and never appear in a database.
Mostly, rulings are published when someone has lodged an appeal, so they tend to be large and contested cases. The rate of 9 in 10 therefore does not say how often a claim against a family succeeds, but how it ends when a dispute goes all the way to a ruling.
For families the conclusion is still simple: a written employment contract, a wage above the canton’s minimum wage, a timesheet and, for a live-in carer, a clear rule for presence time. Anyone who has not yet registered their worker can do so retroactively.
“In court, overtime costs less than a wage that was below the minimum wage for years.”
Sources
- entscheidsuche.ch, index of Swiss court decisions (queried on 29 October 2026) (2026)
- Cantonal courts (including Cour de justice Geneva, Vaud Cantonal Court, Tribunale d’appello Ticino, Zurich High Court) and Federal Supreme Court (1995–2026)
- CO Art. 321c, 329d, 336a, 337c, 341; «CTT-EDom» Geneva (rsGE J 1 50.03); standard employment contracts for domestic work of the cantons and the Confederation (2026)
- SCC Art. 157 and 182; FNIA Art. 117 (2026)
- Clino, analysis and anonymised dataset (CSV) (2026)
Do you represent an organization supporting households or workers?
Become a partner →Further Resources
Press Contact
Media inquiries, interviews, background information
About Clino
Clino is a Swiss SaaS platform enabling households to legally employ domestic workers: payroll, contract and AHV registration; Clino guides the household, insurance stays with the household. CHF 19.90/month. All 26 cantons. Founded 2026 in Zurich. clino.ch
