Gentlemen’s Club Cannot Strip Dancers of Employee Status

10 November 2014 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

We mentioned early last year that the U.S. Department of Labor intended to start cracking down on the (mis)classification of workers as independent contractors. All is not lost however, as we also recently discussed a New York case where a court found that the employer properly classified its 200 drivers as independent contractors and dismissed their claims, indicating that there remains (when done very carefully) ways to properly use independent contractors. Within this context, over the last several years, dancers at gentlemen’s clubs around the country have brought numerous Fair Labor Standards Act and related state law wage and hour suits challenging their classification as independent contractors, and a gentlemen’s strip club in Nevada recently ended up on the wrong side of one of these challenges.

The decision from the Nevada Supreme Court reminds us that, whether in a Fortune 1000 setting or the more, we’ll say “intriguing,” adult entertainment industry, there is a very fine line between classifying someone as an employee or an independent contractor, and getting it wrong can be very costly. In the recent Nevada case, the gentlemen’s club contracted with over 6,000 performers who provided semi-nude entertainment for the Club’s customers. The dancers received no compensation from the Club, instead relying exclusively on tips and dancing fees from patrons. Six performers filed a class action complaint in 2009, claiming they were employees because they had to abide by the Club’s rules, including, among other requirements, a minimum heel height for shoes, a minimum shift of six hours, and paying a fee if they refused to perform on stage twice per shift. The Club argued that it properly classified the performers as independent contractors because they determined their own schedules, set their own prices for private performances, were permitted to perform at other venues, controlled the “artistic aspects” of their performances, and signed an independent contractor agreement.

Finding that the “economic realities test” of the Fair Labor Standards Act ran parallel with the state’s five-factor test, the Nevada Supreme Court concluded that the performers were in fact employees of the Club and due at least minimum wage for all hours worked. First, the Court found the agreements between the performers and the Club clearly set forth an employment relationship, as it was an express contract of hire, regardless of the fact that the Club claimed it had no intent to employ the performers. The Court then applied a non-exhaustive list of six factors, including the degree of the Club’s control over the work performed, the performers’ opportunity for profit, the performers’ investment in tools or equipment, whether the performers applied a special skill, the degree of permanence of the relationship, and whether the services were an integral part of the Club’s business. On the basis of these factors, the Court decided that the Club did in fact closely monitor the performers’ schedules, attire and performances, satisfying the “control” factor, and further held that the performers’ ability to “hustle” for tips was not such a special skill that distinguished them from employees. Most importantly, the Court found that the performers provided a service to the Club that was integral to the business, as “the women strip-dancing there are useful and indeed necessary to [the Club’s] operation.”

The recent Nevada decision, while emanating from a tabloid-like context, nonetheless again reminds all employers that it is a balancing act to determine whether a group of individuals should be classified as employees or independent contractors fraught with serious risk. So how do employers navigate this tricky area, particularly when independent contractors represent a company’s brand and thus employers generally have a need to take steps to assure quality control? There are a variety of tests and factors that a state or federal court may apply, and it is imperative that businesses assess the applicable factors to determine which designation may be appropriate. At a general level though, unless a company can give general guidance to a worker on what is needed and then take a largely hands-off approach from there, the company is dancing (whether in a ballroom or a more exotic setting …) to a dangerous beat. As always, it is a good idea to consult with employment counsel whenever independent contractor use is at play or under consideration.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Does The U.S. Need STRONGER Patents?
16 July 2019
PTAB Trial Insights
California Establishes Fund to Combat Wildfire Threats
15 July 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
There’s No Place Like Home – But Is That a Reasonable Accommodation?
15 July 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ