Skip to main content

From Pom Poms to the Courtroom: NFL Cheerleaders File Class Action


Stop me if you have heard this one before:  Cheerleaders file a lawsuit against their employer (the team and/or league) on the grounds that they are being improperly paid low wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  (For those who might recall, cheerleader wage & hour lawsuits have been quite common in recent years:  Oakland Raiders (1); Oakland Raiders (2); Cincinnati Bengals; Buffalo Bills; New York Jets; Tampa Bay Bucs; Milwaukee Bucks).

On January 31, a proposed class action lawsuit (brought by a "Jane Doe" on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated) was filed in federal court in San Francisco by four cheerleaders from two different teams (the San Francisco 49ers and the Oakland Raiders) with damages being sought between $100 and $300 million.  Although these cheerleaders come from only the two teams, the lawsuit names all 26 teams which have cheerleaders as well as the league itself.  The lawsuit follows the lead of the prior cheerleader lawsuits and alleged that the teams improperly paid its cheerleaders about $100/game and in other instances did not compensate them at all for time spent practicing or for mandatory public appearances.

However, this case takes things one step further, in comparison to the other cheerleader wage & hour lawsuits that have been filed.  This lawsuit has alleged a decades old conspiracy among teams in the league, in violation of federal antitrust law.  According to the facts alleged, in annual meetings, contract negotiations, and other company venues, the teams and the league conspired to:

  • Ban professional cheerleaders from being recruited to other squads;
  • Pay flat, per game pay rates that were so low that many of these cheerleaders had to work other jobs to make a living;
  • Not pay the cheerleaders for time spent practicing;
  • Not pay the cheerleaders for time spent in community outreach events;
  • Prohibit the cheerleaders from being employed by other professional cheerleading teams (not just those within the NFL);
  • Prohibit the cheerleaders from discussing their wages with each other; and
  • File with the NFL all cheerleading contracts to ensure participating with the alleged conspiracy.

Prior to several of the cheerleader wage & hour lawsuits brought in recent years, many cheerleaders earned little ($125/game to be a part of the Oakland Raiderettes) or nothing at all (to be a part of the Buffalo Jills).  Since that time, while cheerleaders in the league now receive an hourly minimum wage rate, after expenses (ie for hair, makeup, audition fees, etc) it often adds up to barely $1,000.00.  With all the time required to be a part of these professional cheerleading teams (such as practices, appearances, pre-game, post-game, etc), that $1,000.00 is a small pittance.  However, this lawsuit takes things in an entirely different direction with the allegation of a league wide conspiracy to purposefully suppress wages...something that the prior cheerleader lawsuits have not directly addressed.

Interesting to see how this one plays out.  Since the lawsuit was just filed in late January, no formal answer has been filed as of yet.  I would keep an eye on how the teams & league respond...and whether any other similar lawsuits might follow this one.


For additional information:  http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/NFL-hit-with-lawsuit-by-cheerleaders-demanding-10900824.php

For a copy of the petition filed with the Court:  pdfserver.amlaw.com/ca/NFLCheerleaderantitrust.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