ILNews

Motion & discovery

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

These days, litigation is more often about getting from point A to point B, and that small picture is what’s important to the attorneys involved. While legal theory and precedent are part of the big picture, when navigating a case lawyers often keep their focus on resolving it early. “I’ve seen in my years of practice that the court system is more intent on having parties resolve the case at hand than push through to prove a principle that might be involved,” said Indianapolis attorney John Trimble, who has been involved with the Defense Research Institute and is considered an expert on litigation relating to the national defense bar. “It would be great to take a case to a higher court for a decision that might be relied on in future cases, but we rarely get that chance and have to step back and look at what’s most important to litigants in the case before you.”

That is what happened with a recent case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, in Wendi Morse, et al. v. MER Corporation, No. 1:08-CV-01389, a suit involving a class of dancers who sued the strip club they worked at on wage dispute and employment law issues. Though they no longer worked at the club when the suit was filed in October 2008, dancers Wendi R. Morse and Felicia Kay Pennington alleged that Dancers Showclub in Indianapolis failed to pay them and others similarly situated in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.

They argued their past employer had incorrectly classified dancers as independent contractors instead of employees and failed to pay them minimum wage, and that the employer had 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, which the suit claimed set the hours, shifts, and minimum tips the dancers are required to get each shift.

The plaintiffs wanted 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 were owed to the dancers.

“As demonstrated above, the factors adopted by the Seventh Circuit for determining whether an individual is an independent contractor or an employee weigh squarely in favor of Entertainers being classified as employees,” the lawsuit stated. “Defendant exercises a broad range of controls over the conduct of Entertainers and over the method and manner in which Entertainers go about performing their job. Entertainers have limited opportunities for profit and virtually no risk of loss, are not permitted to make any investment in, or have any input regarding, the business, are not required to have any specialized skill or training, and have a very limited ability to take initiative and improve their earnings. The relationship between Defendant and Entertainers bears all the hallmarks of an ongoing one and they could hardly be more of an integral part of Defendant’s business. Therefore, Defendant was required to pay wages to Plaintiffs in accordance with the FLSA. Defendant failed to do so.”

Before this case, that issue hadn’t been addressed here in this jurisdiction and plaintiffs referred to various federal precedent from the District and Circuit levels outside of Indiana to make their case.

But U.S. Judge William T. Lawrence in Indianapolis tackled that issue last year, relying on the outside precedent and other employment caselaw to decide that exotic dancers are employees, not independent contractors as the club owner argued in this Morse case. He made the decision based on the factors defined in Secretary of Labor v. Lauritzen, 835 F.2d 1529, 1535 (7th Cir. 1985), and also relied on a similar case out of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Reich v. Circle C. Investments, Inc., 998 F.2d 324 (5th Cir. 1993), where that court found exotic dancers to be employees.

With that ruling, the attorneys in this case sidestepped a trial that had been set for December and instead began more seriously talking about a joint settlement – without turning to a higher appeals court to reweigh whether the District judge’s interpretation was correct.

The litigation originally involved 31 individuals who would be eligible for class status against the club, but many were ultimately dismissed because they couldn’t be located and didn’t participate in prosecuting the dancers’ claims.

The case settled in December, with the club owners paying a total of $79,952 to the 17 plaintiffs - $237.50 for each month a dancer would have worked between Oct. 14, 2005 and the time this agreement was filed by the court in December. The two named plaintiffs for the class, Morse and Pennington, also received an extra lump sum of $5,000 each.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers received nearly $63,048 in fees, a 20 percent reduction from the total they would have charged, the agreement shows. Attorneys Philip Gibbons and Andrew Jones with Gibbons Jones law firm in Indianapolis couldn’t be reached for comment on this litigation before IL deadline. Defense counsel Rick Kammen also couldn’t be reached for comment.

But those who’ve worked in simple or complex litigation say this case isn’t anything out of the ordinary. Rising litigation costs and mediation preference makes settlement more common, according to Indianapolis attorney Tom Schultz, past president of Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana. He said it’s not unusual, even in larger more complex matters, for a settlement to be reached even before those larger matters are resolved. Sometimes, the significant cost of litigation causes parties to move toward a settlement and many times the cost of discovery will cause parties to negotiate and avoid the much larger and costlier issues in a case.

Trimble agreed, but said that even though trial lawyers aren’t focused on the broader legal issues, they are always mindful of those during pre-trial litigation stages and work to make sure the record is efficiently and correctly established.

He recalls what a federal judge once said during a case he was handling and how that applies to any litigation.

“If you’ve gone up on appeal, then you’ve lost,” Trimble recalled the judge saying. “Going to finality for your client is what’s important. Litigation is so expensive and time-consuming, and lawyers want a case over with. They want to be seen as problem-solvers and resolve those disputes as quickly and economically as they can.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT