ILNews

Court certifies exotic dancer suit as class action

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Anyone who danced in the past three years at one Indianapolis strip club embroiled in a lawsuit over minimum wage may be able to collect on unpaid wages, ruled a District Court judge Wednesday.

Southern District Judge William Lawrence granted a motion for notice to potential plaintiffs and certified the matter as a collective action in Wendi R. Morse and Felicia Kay Pennington, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. M E R Corp. d/b/a Dancers Showclub, No. 1:08-cv-1389.

Dancers Wendi R. Morse and Felicia Kay Pennington filed the suit in October 2008 alleging the club failed to pay them and others similarly situated in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. They no longer worked at the club when they filed the suit but had worked there within the past three years.

The plaintiffs argued Dancers Showclub incorrectly classified dancers as independent contractors instead of employees and failed to pay them minimum wage. The suit also claims Dancers Showclub required the women to pay a percentage of their tips to the club and other employees who don't customarily receive tips, violating 29 U.S.C. Section 203(m).

Dancers don't receive any wages or other compensation from the club and they aren't allowed to dance at any other exotic clubs while working at Dancers Showclub. The suit also states the club sets the hours, shifts, and minimum tips the dancers are required to get each shift.

The plaintiffs want the club to repay back wages in addition to wages equal to the amount they had to tip-out to the club and other employees, as well as liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid compensation and tips found due to the dancers.

Judge Lawrence certified the suit as a collective action, ordering Dancers Showclub to produce the names and other employee information of all the current and former dancers at the club from the previous three years as of the date of the order. The judge ordered Dancers Showclub to produce the information by Jan. 18 and required the notice to potential plaintiffs and consent to join form be mailed within 7 days from that date. Potential plaintiffs have 60 days from that point to opt-in the litigation.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT