Stripper Army Suing Rick's Cabaret for Stiffing Dancers
samsung1
Ohio
As many as 4,500 women who worked as strippers at the Rick's Cabaret on West 33rd Street have been given the green light to proceed with a class-action lawsuit against the club. The lawsuit alleges that Rick's, a publicly traded company comprised of 19 adult nightclubs, paid strippers less than minimum wages for taking off their clothes and even charged them for using the facilities. In a press release titled "XXX-Mas Comes Early for New York Strippers," attorney E. Michelle Drake slammed the club with brio:
Rick's has it backwards. Strippers are not supposed to have to pay to work. They may agree to strip off their clothes, but they have not agreed to be stripped of their rights. Fifty dollars per night, plus an additional amount for hourly wages, adds up to a lot of money very quickly, especially when that amount is doubled under federal law.
The plaintiffs also claim that the club charges patrons $24 to buy a "dance dollar" for use inside, but the strippers only see $18 of that. The $5 million lawsuit accuses Rick's of threatening strippers with termination if they didn't pay illegal "house fees" in order to work. The main thrust of the suit is that Rick's misclassified dancers as independent contractors, when they were in fact underpaid employees relying almost solely on tips.
A nearly identical misclassification lawsuit filed by a single entertainer against Rick's settled for $36,000. If you are a woman who used to dance erotically at Rick's and would like a piece of the action, Drake encourages you to contact him by calling (612) 256-3200.
http://gothamist.com/2009/12/24/stripper…
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/…
Rick's has it backwards. Strippers are not supposed to have to pay to work. They may agree to strip off their clothes, but they have not agreed to be stripped of their rights. Fifty dollars per night, plus an additional amount for hourly wages, adds up to a lot of money very quickly, especially when that amount is doubled under federal law.
The plaintiffs also claim that the club charges patrons $24 to buy a "dance dollar" for use inside, but the strippers only see $18 of that. The $5 million lawsuit accuses Rick's of threatening strippers with termination if they didn't pay illegal "house fees" in order to work. The main thrust of the suit is that Rick's misclassified dancers as independent contractors, when they were in fact underpaid employees relying almost solely on tips.
A nearly identical misclassification lawsuit filed by a single entertainer against Rick's settled for $36,000. If you are a woman who used to dance erotically at Rick's and would like a piece of the action, Drake encourages you to contact him by calling (612) 256-3200.
http://gothamist.com/2009/12/24/stripper…
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/…
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
10 comments
It seems to me that a strip club with a good lawyer could write a contract which clearly forced the stripper to accept status as a contractor. Let me give an analogy. When you go to Walmart, it is impossible for you to tell who are the employees and who are renting space from Walmart to peddle their wares. Some of the specialty services inside a Walmart, such as vision, prescriptions, photography, flowers, etc. are actually independent contractors. I assume this varies from store to store and over time. Likewise, some SCs will have "house girls" who are being paid an hourly wage to show up on the company's terms and work the hours specified. House girls do not necessarily get to keep all the money they collect from customers. The same strip club may encourage other women to come in, pay a fee (often called a tip-out) and make as much money off the paying customers as they are capable of.
The plaintiff says the strippers were faced with termination if they didn't pay illegal "house fees". But house fees are NOT inherently illegal. If Rick's can provide an environment where a motivated and qualified stripper can make hundreds of dollars (or more) a night then it seems like Rick's has a moral as well as a legal right to charge the stripper a fee, just as Walmart would charge a vendor a fee to operate his business inside the Walmart store.
The fact that there is a class-action lawsuit in place shows this employee/contractor dichotomy is not simple or clear-cut. But just because a lawsuit gets class-action status doesn't mean that the plaintiffs will win. I predict that Rick's will either win this outright, or eventually reach an out-of-court settlement for FAR less than the lawyers are seeking.
Worth following up on if you are interested in The Law.
A lot of the time when businesses get stiffed with fines, rules, fees, etc. they end up passing it along to the customer in some way.
I am also curious about this...I don't have a great answer for you but I found this in the wikipedia article for Lap Dance
"Lap dancing clubs are a development of the earlier strip clubs, in which strippers danced on stage and were paid a wage. In the 1970s, New York's Melody Theater introduced audience participation. The Melody Theater became the Harmony Theater and operated in two locations in Manhattan for over 20 years until it was closed down in 1998.
In 1980, San Francisco's Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theatre changed its policy so that customers could have dancers come to sit naked on their laps for a $1 tip. The practice quickly spread.[2] It suited club owners, because it brought in more customers and it meant they had to pay less to the dancers. Sitting on customers' laps evolved into lap dancing."
Sam, I've been to Mitchell Bros. VERY expensive place!!! And they don't sit on your lap for a $1 anymore. Now if they think you're okay, they grab your crotch and offer services. Very expensive services. Maybe for some guys the price is okay... but for most of us I'm guessing not.
"So, (I apologize if I'm reinventing the wheel here), how'd the 'independent contractor' designation ever come about for strippers? Why weren't they called or considered employees from the start?"
It's a basically a tax dodge for almost all involved. If strippers ever get wise & form more unions, this practice will likely end entirely. There are, of course, things that each side will lose if this comes to pass.
"I wonder if we as customers would have to end up paying larger cover charges if the club had to start paying the dancers as employees?"
Maybe, but most strip clubs make a TON of money off selling drinks to begin with & that money wouldn't be touched at all by making strippers employees.