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,...
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