Join the Federal Lawsuits for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act against Skin Gentlemen’s Club or Silver Reign. Click here to find out more.
Se Habla Español
Contact Us Today 310-507-7924

Los Angeles Law Blog

By John Kristensen of Kristensen, LLP posted in Employment Law -- Employee on Tuesday, December 10, 2019.
Kristensen LLP Files Collection Action Against Xposed Gentleman’s Club For Labor Law Violations

On December 9, 2019, Kristensen LLP filed a collective action (not a class case) on behalf of Jane Doe in Federal Court against Xposed Gentleman’s Club. The case alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid minimum wage, overtime and forced tip pooling. There are also individual California state labor law claims.

Xposed Gentleman’s Club is a fictional name. The actual entity is Sisphyian, LLC. The Complaint also names the owner, Brad Barnes, as a defendant. Kristensen LLP makes sure that individuals responsible for Federal and State labor violations cannot escape responsibility and justice behind corporate shells.

Xposed, like many other strip clubs, claims the dancers are “independent contractors”.  That arrangement is illegal. Forcing employees to sign documents calling them “independent contractors” doesn’t magically relieve the clubs from paying minimum wage or overtime. Nor does it allow them require house fees or force tip pooling. The new AB5 while helpful is not ground breaking for dancers. Federal Courts have ruled repeatedly that under that even under the employer friendly economic reality test dancers were not independent contractors.

If you worked at Xposed in the last three years, you may have a claim. Contact Kristensen LLP to see if you are entitled to recover your stolen wages.  Also, if you have evidence about Xposed’s labor practices please contact us. We can be contacted via this website. You can send a text message to (310) 913-1201, email us at dancer @ kristensenlaw.com or visit https://www.dancersrights.com.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals put this issue to rest recently in upholding a $4.5 million award in Verma v. 2001 Castor, Inc. dba The Penthouhse Club, 937 F.3d 221 (3d. Cir. 2019).  There is no debate, as a matter of law, that exotic dancers such as the putative class members in this matter are “employees” under the Fair Labor Standards Act. See, e.g., Mason v. Fantasy, LLC, 13-CV-02020-RM-KLM, 2015 WL 4512327, at *13 (D. Colo. July 27, 2015); Verma v. 3001 Castor, Inc., CIV.A. 13-3034, 2014 WL 2957453, at *5 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2014): McFeeley v. Jackson St. Ent., LLC, 47 F. Supp. 3d 260, 279 (D. Md. 2014);  Hart v. Rick’s Cabaret Int’l, Inc., 967 F. Supp. 2d 901, 912-13 (S.D.N.Y. 2013); Collins v. Barney’s Barn, Inc., et al., No. 4:12CV00685 SWW (E.D. Ark. Nov. 14, 2013); Butler v. PP & G, Inc., CIV.A. WMN-13-430, 2013 WL 5964476, at *9 (D. Md. Nov. 7, 2013) reconsideration denied, CIV.A. WMN-13-430, 2014 WL 199001 (D. Md. Jan. 16, 2014); Thornton v. Crazy Horse, Inc., No. 3:06-CV-00251-TMB, 2012 WL 2175753 (D. Alaska June 14, 2012); Thompson v. Linda and A. Inc., 779 F. Supp. 2d 139, 151 (D.D.C. 2011); Morse v. Mer Corp., 2010 WL 2346334, at *6 (S.D.Ind. 2010);  Reich v. Priba Corp., 890 F. Supp. 586, 594 (N.D.Tex. 1995); Martin v. Priba Corp., 1992 WL 486911, at *5 (N.D.Tex. 1992); Reich v. Circle C. Investments, Inc., 998 F.2d 324, 330 (5th Cir. 1993). Clincy v. Galardi South Enter., Inc., 808 F. Supp. 2d 1326, 1346 (N.D. Ga. 2011)(summary judgment granted against club); Stevenson v. Great American Dream, Inc., 2013 WL 6880921 (N.D.Ga. Dec. 31, 2013)(same); Berry v. Great American Dream, Inc., 2014 WL 5822691 (N.D.Ga. Nov. 10, 2014) (Gentlemen’s Club collaterally estopped from re-litigating issue that entertainers are independent contractors rather than employees); Vaughn v. Paradise Entm’t Group, Inc., Case No. 14-CV-00914-SCJ, Doc. 190, (N.D.Ga. March 15, 2016)(summary judgment); Dean v. 1715 Northside Drive, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-03775-CAP, Doc. 102, (N.D.Ga. January 14, 2017)(same); Thompson v. 1715 Northside Drive, No. 1:14-CV-390-RWS, at *11 (N.D.Ga. Mar. 30, 2015)(same); Harrell v. Diamond A Entm’t, Inc., 992 F. Supp. 1343 (M.D. Fla. 1997)(same).