Skip to main content

N.F.L. Claims It is Not Responsible for Oakland Raiders Cheerleaders' Pay Because of Immunity


One of the labor & employment law topics that has kept me interested this year is the ongoing struggle of N.F.L. cheerleaders to obtain higher pay and the subsequent wage and hour suits that have been brought as a result.  For those keeping score at home, the Oakland Raiders have been sued twice (at this time, there are five outstanding wage and hour suits brought by cheerleaders against four different N.F.L. teams).  The Raiders cases have been some of the most prevalent, and consequently the suits against that team have gotten a majority of coverage.

Earlier this month, the N.F.L. filed a response to one of the cheerleaders' suits brought against the Raiders (the second Raiders lawsuit), which also named the N.F.L. as a potentially liable party.  In its response, the League claimed that the cheerleaders cannot pursue the claim against the League because the N.F.L. and its teams are immune from all state labor code provisions.  Interestingly enough, the League does not claim it is immune from all state labor laws, rather the League claims it cannot "be constitutionally burdened with challenges brought under divergent state legislation."  As a basis for this argument, the League pointed the court to a California Supreme Court case that held players cannot bring antitrust suits against teams.  As a result, the League has attempted to draw the comparison that because of this case, the N.F.L. is subsequently immune from state labor laws and the subsequent wage and hour claims that have been brought.  

The League in essence is saying "Sorry, but this is not our problem" and points to the fact that it apparently was not a party to the Raiderette Agreement and had no authority to enforce it.  These are rather far reaching arguments and ones that I doubt will carry much weight in court.  Time will tell what happens with this case, but as the saying goes:  "Play On."


A copy of the response filed by the N.F.L. can be found here:  http://media.nbcbayarea.com/documents/NFLreply.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more