Funny how these law suits are always filed after they no longer work there.
shadowcat
Atlanta suburb
Two exotic dancers who used to work at a Pensacola strip club are suing the club's owners for supposed unpaid wages, saying they were wrongly classified as independent contractors and not employees of the club.
Utahna Hughes and Jessica McClellan both worked at Escapes Gentleman's Club on North Davis Highway, according to court papers. Both women, the suit says, should have been paid hourly wages and tips according to federal law, but since they were technically not employees of the club and its owner, they were not.
The lawsuit, which was filed earlier this month in the Northern District of Florida, is seeking an unnamed amount of damages. Edmond Burie and GC&P Enterprises, the owners of the club, are named as the defendants.
The 14-page lawsuit spells out how the tips that the exotic dancers received were doled out.
“A portion of the dancer's tips would be paid to the disc jockey, the bouncers, the managers on duty, the defendants and/or the bartenders,†the lawsuit says.
As of now, Hughes and McClellan are the only plaintiffs named in the lawsuit. However, the suit says they are trying to recruit other exotic dancers who “were compensated in a similar matter.†All are entitled to damages, court papers say.
About 100 exotic dancers have worked at Escapes since Burie has owned the club, the suit says. Due to poor bookkeeping, however, the number of actual dancers is hard to ascertain, according to court papers.
“The plaintiffs are not in possession of all the records and schedules which may exist to reflect the total number of hours worked for defendants,†the suit says. “As a result, they cannot plead, with accuracy, the number of dancers that worked for defendants without being paid the proper minimum wage.â€
Jeremiah Talbott, the attorney for Hughes and McClellan, did not return a phone call last week.
A response has not been filed. Burie did not submit a comment Saturday.
Utahna Hughes and Jessica McClellan both worked at Escapes Gentleman's Club on North Davis Highway, according to court papers. Both women, the suit says, should have been paid hourly wages and tips according to federal law, but since they were technically not employees of the club and its owner, they were not.
The lawsuit, which was filed earlier this month in the Northern District of Florida, is seeking an unnamed amount of damages. Edmond Burie and GC&P Enterprises, the owners of the club, are named as the defendants.
The 14-page lawsuit spells out how the tips that the exotic dancers received were doled out.
“A portion of the dancer's tips would be paid to the disc jockey, the bouncers, the managers on duty, the defendants and/or the bartenders,†the lawsuit says.
As of now, Hughes and McClellan are the only plaintiffs named in the lawsuit. However, the suit says they are trying to recruit other exotic dancers who “were compensated in a similar matter.†All are entitled to damages, court papers say.
About 100 exotic dancers have worked at Escapes since Burie has owned the club, the suit says. Due to poor bookkeeping, however, the number of actual dancers is hard to ascertain, according to court papers.
“The plaintiffs are not in possession of all the records and schedules which may exist to reflect the total number of hours worked for defendants,†the suit says. “As a result, they cannot plead, with accuracy, the number of dancers that worked for defendants without being paid the proper minimum wage.â€
Jeremiah Talbott, the attorney for Hughes and McClellan, did not return a phone call last week.
A response has not been filed. Burie did not submit a comment Saturday.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
17 comments
They're going to paid minimum wage, have to keep a schedule, and perform jobs they don't like (cleaning the restrooms, etc...).
They're killing the goose that lays their golden egg.
If there is no funny money, they will also have to check in with a dance goon to insure they get their amount. Pay without funny money, tossed out - dancer and customer.
The big lesson is that club owners think that they can call them independent contractors but then micromanage them like employees. You just can't do it both ways.
At the end of the day their forcing the issue is good for no one but themselves in the short term and (as always) the lawyers.
Yes, the clubs are not following the law. As others said, they want to call the dancers independent contractors yet have rules as if they are employees. Who cares? Probably 95% of the dancers prefer it this way. These lawsuits are NOT REALLY about misclassification as independent contractors. It's just the argument the lawyers use to convince some dancers to help line their own pockets.
As SC said in thread title, why is it always "ex" dancers?
The dancers that merely use the club as a safe, convenient, and efficient means to develop a base of OTC customers would be operating a competing business with their employer. Most employers forbid, or strongly frown upon, current employees operating a competitive business.
I can’t speak for all states’ laws, but here in Georgia the way the clubs handle dancers is nowhere close to meeting the legal definition of an independent contractor. They really are employees under Georgia law, and as such clubs are supposed to be subject to state and federal law concerning taxes, wages, overtime, etc----but they get away with shirking these responsibilities UNLESS dancers hold them accountable through these types of lawsuits. Do you think the clubs (or any type of employer for that matter) are just going to step up and “do the right thing†without being sued? Of course not, or they’d already be doing it.
I always find it interesting to see the public outrage that is directed against people and their lawyers for bringing a lawsuit without ever trying to determine first if the case may actually be legitimate. What’s even more interesting is that usually these same people that decry “lawsuits†and “ambulance-chasing lawyers†the loudest then turn into the most litigious and money-hungry people whenever something supposedly bad happens to THEM.
They perhaps fit into your definition.
I never said the dancers did not have a legitimate case. Sure they do. In most all instances of cases of this type, the courts have made it clear that the clubs have misclassifed the dancers as independent contractors. That's not my point. My point is simple -- is it really in the dancer's best interest to be classified as an employee?
It's pretty easy to convince a naive 22 year old stripper that if she'll agree to help in the lawsuit, she is going to be rich. One case I'm fairly familiar with, the lawyer went into a club and talked to the dancers in the club. She didn't come to him. Talk about ambulance chasers!
In the case I'm pretty familiar with, I've read the court documents numerous times. I've talked to many dancers. When the dancer filed the lawsuit, the club, of course, fired her...just as you said they would. When her lawyer filed a counterclaim for her job, the club re-hired her as an employee. They paid her minimum wage as the suit requested. She got her panties all up in a bunch and quit. See - it was never about "misclassification" under FLSA.
When the class action suit was settled, dancers were offered either $500 or a $1000 credit toward house "rents". (All dependent on how many days they worked). Wanna guess how many dancers at this club accepted the cash or credit?
I'll say it over and over again. Yes, the clubs are wrong by the definition of the law. But it's a system that works pretty well. If these dancers keep filing these lawsuits, then someday, we're all going to see clubs with timed, automated, "pay first" dances - something the members of this board almost universally reject.