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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more