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,...
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