Skip to main content

From Pom Poms to the Courtroom - Oakland Raiders Edition (Again)



Those following the blog the past few months have noted the increasing number of wage and hour lawsuits that have been brought against N.F.L. teams.  As of this point, the Oakland Raiders, Cincinnati Bengals, Buffalo Bills, New York Jets, and Tampa Bay Buccaneers have all had wage and hour lawsuits filed against them this year by former cheerleaders.  These lawsuits have alleged, among other things, that the teams are paying the cheerleaders less than minimum wage, in violation of Federal and state labor and employment laws.

The first cheerleader lawsuit that really set the dominos was brought by a former Raiders cheerleader in January.  A few days ago, two former Raiders cheerleaders also filed a wage and hour lawsuit against the team.  This lawsuit is very similar to the one previously filed in January:  While the cheerleaders are paid $125 per game, they end up making around $5 per hour with all the other required promotional activities they are required to attend.  The lawsuit also alleged "deplorable working conditions" including having to change in public with little to no privacy and attend golf events where they were groped by inebriated men.  As well, there is also the Arbitration provision in the agreement which states that if there is a dispute surrounding this agreement, the exclusive remedy will be arbitration with the N.F.L. Commissioner serving as the arbitrator.

With that being said, there are a few differences that really stand out between this Raiders lawsuit and the one filed in January.  For instance, there are different attorneys representing the Raiders cheerleaders in each lawsuit.  Not surprising necessarily, but something to note.  As well, this lawsuit also names the N.F.L. as a defendant.  This is a real contrast between the previous suits that have been filed which only name the actual team or organization that oversees the cheerleaders as the liable defendant.  Without going too in depth at this point, in order for this suit to succeed against the N.F.L., the cheerleaders must show an agency relationship.  In essence, it must be shown that the Raiders were acting on behalf of the N.F.L. and were acting with the consent, permission, or authorization of the N.F.L. 


A copy of the complaint filed by these cheerleaders can be found here:  http://media.nbcbayarea.com/documents/Raiderettes.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