“Federal judge rules it’s against state law to dock strippers’ pay if they remove their clothes too slowly” [Wisconsin; BNA via @jonsteingart]
“Federal judge rules it’s against state law to dock strippers’ pay if they remove their clothes too slowly” [Wisconsin; BNA via @jonsteingart]
6 Comments
Hmmm. And after all this time, I thought it was called, “strip tease” for a reason. Am I wrong?
Gosh, how times have changed…
I don’t understand why this is here. I think the law is relatively clear on the point. If an employer believes that an employee is not doing his/her job, the answer is not to dock wages for work already performed. Discipline may be warranted, i.e., suspension or firing. This is especially true where the rules are inherently subjective.
>I don’t understand why this is here
This makes a good occasion to reprint the site’s reminder, originally posted in 2007 and periodically reposted since then:
https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/04/a-reminder-evergreen-post/
* When we post on Overlawyered about a real or potential lawsuit, it doesn’t necessarily mean we think the case is without merit. We regularly discuss meritorious cases.
* Not infrequently lawsuits we discuss are well founded on existing law, but that existing law is ill-conceived and deserves to be reconsidered. Or both law and lawsuit may make perfect sense, but the level of damages demanded may be excessive or implausible. Or the combatants on one side or both may pursue dubious tactics and theories. Or the media coverage of the case may have been credulous or one-sided. You get the idea.
* Sometimes it’s not clear what if anything either side did wrong in pursuing a dispute, but the case still stands as a monument to the high cost of resolving things through legal process. A recurring example: the family feud over a legacy that ends by consuming the estate in litigation costs.
* We also discuss a certain number of cases that are just plain interesting: they raise novel or non-obvious legal issues, or they shed light on human nature as it manifests itself in legal disputes. And, yes, it does happen on occasion that I take note of a case without being sure what I myself think of it.
* Finally, the multiple people who have posted content on the site are different people and don’t always agree with each other.
Sorry if this introduces complexity where people were expecting to find simplicity.
Thanks. I think I had lost sight of the purpose of the blog’s owner.
Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants impose various “fines” for alleged violations of the Oval Office’s company policies for poor workmanship, including getting to the stage late; starting a routine late; leaving the stage before the next dancer arrives; failing to spend enough time on the floor with customers to sell additional services; failing to fully remove all clothing, except for underwear, by the end of the first song when dancing on stage; spending too much time in the dressing room; and not dressing according to the Oval Office’s dress code.
https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Stevens_v_Oval_Office_LLC_et_al_Docket_No_116cv01419_ED_Wis_Oct_2?1484019230
If the woman wasn’t actually stripping, the club couldn’t charge as much or probably had to give refunds. They say her actions cost them money which is why they fined her.
The actual opinion is somewhat interesting as the judge says (paraphrasing) “there are two unpublished opinions on this issue from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals that support the club and I disagree with them so I am finding for the dancer.”
But to be fair to the judge, one of those unpublished opinions was directly contradicted by another unpublished decision by an appeals court at the same level and on the same day as that unpublished opinion. Given conflicting and nonbinding opinions, it’s perfectly appropriate for the judge to draw his own conclusions.
Actually, no. They claim that the fines are NOT attempting to recoup a loss, and that’s why the fines should be legal. And if you think that doesn’t make much sense… well, that’s pretty much why the judge ruled against them.