tuscl

U.S. District Court, Detroit, MI

SuperDude
Detroit, Michigan
Friday, April 28, 2017 10:19 PM
The lawsuit alleges that Deja Vu-Affiliated Nightclubs misclassified entertainers as non-employees and as a result of this misclassification, entertainers were not paid minimum wages and other compensation required under federal and/or various state wage and hour laws. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that Defendants unlawfully confiscated entertainer tips. The Defendants have denied these allegations and have threatened counterclaims to recover the value of mandatory dance fees retained by entertainers if the clubs are determined to owe minimum wages. Plaintiffs and Defendants have reached a settlement in this case. The Court has not ruled on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims or on Deja Vu’s defenses or anticipated counter-claims. Rather, the Court has simply certified a settlement class and tentatively approved the proposed settlement.

11 comments

  • jackslash
    •
    7 years ago
    No info on the settlement. Dancers usually win these suits.
  • SuperDude
    •
    7 years ago
    The website has the details of the settlement. Too long to post or read.
  • shailynn
    •
    7 years ago
    Just don't remove the curtains in the clubs, and everything will be okay
  • gammanu95
    •
    7 years ago
    I thought the norm was for SCs to employ the dancers as independent contractors?
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    As I have seen, most of the time the dancers do win. But this does not mean clubs can't use contractor status, just that they need to be more careful in how they do it. SJG
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    7 years ago
    This just sounds like the same-o same-o of clubs wanting to treat dancers as ICs so they can get house-fees from them but want to also treat dancers like employees so they can tell them what to do such as setting their schedules
  • twentyfive
    •
    7 years ago
    ^^^Actually setting of schedules, does not disqualify Indy-Contractor status, just shows a need for the sub-contractor to be on site when contractors needs for their labor are.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    There are lots of things which can be looked at to see if contractor status is valid. Sometimes clubs set up an "Agency" which books dancers. But it still depends on the courts. In Calif they will usually side with the contractors who want to be make employees. As far as the money, remember that this stuff really doesn't matter. The club can get money via door cover, booth fees, from the bar, or from dancer access fees. What makes it better is to draw more money in and enlarge the pie. Some cover charge keeps non-spenders out. Booth and VIP fees tends to discourage their use and keep the action in the front room. Trying to charge dancers a percentage leads to finger pointing. Charging dancers a flat rate access fee makes them more aggressive and tends to push them to go further. Its all consenting adults who work together out of choice. Making them IC's allows easier termination and it means less records. Most of the time dancers want this. Usually they do not report their incomes. Usually those that sue are the former dancers, too fat after multiple pregnancies. SJG
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    The clubs want the girls to be in charge, very little job description or supervision. Obviously. But if they need to terminate one, they also want to do this easily. SJG
  • mmdv26
    •
    7 years ago
    Kinda surprised to see this action going on. I thought the IC issue had been largely settled via a myriad of previous challenges at other clubs. As I recall, the new norm is that dancers are tipped employees.
  • bvino
    •
    7 years ago
    I guess this tells us where lawyers have lunch.
You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion