Court Revives Dancers' Claims Holding Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
Picture this working scenario. You are lucky enough to have a job where you are required to pay your employer just to work. A fee that you pay just for showing up. You pay for everything from the uniform you are required to wear, to the locker you use to safeguard your valuables, to tipping everyone else before you ever collect a dime in wages. Now, also imagine that if you are late to work, late for your shift, or have to leave early (even if for an emergency), you pay a fine to your employer.
August 24, 2017 at 11:42 PM
7 minute read
Picture this working scenario. You are lucky enough to have a job where you are required to pay your employer just to work. A fee that you pay just for showing up. You pay for everything from the uniform you are required to wear, to the locker you use to safeguard your valuables, to tipping everyone else before you ever collect a dime in wages. Now, also imagine that if you are late to work, late for your shift, or have to leave early (even if for an emergency), you pay a fine to your employer. You are not permitted to use your cellphone, bring food or drinks to work, and you can only take a break when your boss says so, albeit for limited time. And let us not forget, you are also required to maintain a certain body shape lest you will be “shamed if deemed overweight.”
These working conditions sound an awful lot like a sweatshop or forced labor. One might even think that for these types of draconian measures, the pay must be pretty substantial. To the contrary, according to the allegations contained in a complaint filed in the District of New Jersey, the pay rate for this job was not even $8.38 per hour, the state's rate for minimum wage. According to the complaint, to work as an exotic dancer at “Breathless Men's Club” (the club) in Rahway, New Jersey, you must meet all of the foregoing requirements, in addition to a myriad of other rules and regulations, before you can ever take the stage. Oftentimes dancers at the club work an entire shift and actually lose money.
Based on the complaint filed in the case, in order to avoid classifying the dancers as employees, the club required the dancers to rent performance space in the club and sign an “independent dancer rental agreement.” The agreement contained an employment provision and an arbitration clause. The employment provision provided: “Dancer understands and agrees that he/she is an independent contractor and not an employee of the club. Dancer is renting the performance space for an agreed upon fee previously agreed to by dancer and club.” The “employment” agreement was essentially a rental agreement to lease space from the Club.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJustices, Unanimously, Extend Reach of Federal Age-Discrimination Law
Limited Success in Enforcing Post-Employment Restrictions Against Employees
7 minute readRacial Discrimination Case Against Pep Boys Advances, but $7M Punitives Claim Tossed
3 minute readMen Are Worried, but EEOC Panel Finds Little Evidence to Support #MeToo Backlash Fears
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Publication of Information Regarding Client Matters
- 2The State of Cost Recovery — Post COVID
- 3Why Is It Becoming More Difficult for Businesses to Mandate Arbitration of Employment Disputes?
- 4The Whys and Hows of a Mediator’s Proposal
- 5Litigators of the Week: A Trade Secret Win at the ITC for Viking Over Promising Potential Liver Drug
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250