|
|
|
Monday, March 20, 2006
LABOR LAWS AND DANCERS
LABOR LAWS AND DANCERS- WHAT ARE THE LAWS AND HOW THEY APPLY.
Exotic Dancers have fought and won many class actions lawsiuts as well as individulal law suits against the dance club owners over the years. Exotic Dancers have also filed and won almost 200 wage and hour violations with the Calfinfornia State Labor Commission as a means to seek economic justice.
The San Francisco Commission on the Status of Women has recently written proposed legislation that would include the revoking and/or suspending of dance club operators' permits to conduct business if a violation of the following sections of California State Labor code has been violated; Section 201, 202, 203,221,222,223,226,351,353,432.5, 450, 510, 1174,1198,2802
Link for California Labor Code 200 through 243 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=05687313414+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
201. (a) If an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately. An employer who lays off a group of employees by reason of the termination of seasonal employment in the curing, canning, or drying of any variety of perishable fruit, fish or vegetables, shall be deemed to have made immediate payment when the wages of said employees are paid within a reasonable time as necessary for computation and payment thereof; provided, however, that the reasonable time shall not exceed 72 hours, and further provided that payment shall be made by mail to any employee who so requests and designates a mailing address therefor. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the state employer shall be deemed to have made an immediate payment of wages under this section for any unused or accumulated vacation, annual leave, holiday leave, or time off to which the employee is entitled by reason of previous overtime work where compensating time off was given by the appointing power, provided, at least five workdays prior to his or her final day of employment, the employee submits a written election to his or her appointing power authorizing the state employer to tender payment for any or all leave to be contributed on a pretax basis to the employee's account in a state-sponsored supplemental retirement plan as described under Sections 401(k), 403 (b), or 457 of the Internal Revenue Code provided the plan allows those contributions. The contribution shall be tendered for payment to the employee's 401(k), 403(b), or 457 plan account no later than 45 days after the employee's discharge from employment. Nothing in this section is intended to authorize contributions in excess of the annual deferral limits imposed under federal and state law or the provisions of the supplemental retirement plan itself. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when the state employer discharges an employee, the employee may, at least five workdays prior to his or her final day of employment, submit a written election to his or her appointing power authorizing the state employer to defer into the next calendar year payment of any or all of the employee's unused or accumulated vacation, annual leave, holiday leave, or time off to which the employee is entitled by reason of previous overtime work where compensating time off was given by the appointing power. To qualify for the deferral of payment under this section, only that portion of leave that extends past the November pay period for state employees shall be deferred into the next calendar year. An employee electing to defer payment into the next calendar year under this section may do any of the following: (1) Contribute the entire payment to his or her 401(k), 403(b), or 457 plan account. (2) Contribute any portion of the deferred payment to his or her 401(k), 403(b), or 457 plan account and receive cash payment for the remaining noncontributed unused leave. (3) Receive a lump-sum payment for all of the deferred unused leave as described above. Payments shall be tendered under this section no later than February 1 in the year following the employee's last day of employment. Nothing in this section is intended to authorize contributions in excess of the annual deferral limits imposed under federal and state law or the provisions of the supplemental retirement plan itself.
202. (a) If an employee not having a written contract for a definite period quits his or her employment, his or her wages shall become due and payable not later than 72 hours thereafter, unless the employee has given 72 hours previous notice of his or her intention to quit, in which case the employee is entitled to his or her wages at the time of quitting. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an employee who quits without providing a 72-hour notice shall be entitled to receive payment by mail if he or she so requests and designates a mailing address. The date of the mailing shall constitute the date of payment for purposes of the requirement to provide payment within 72 hours of the notice of quitting. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the state employer shall be deemed to have made an immediate payment of wages under this section for any unused or accumulated vacation, annual leave, holiday leave, sick leave to which the employee is otherwise entitled due to a disability retirement, or time off to which the employee is entitled by reason of previous overtime work where compensating time off was given by the appointing power, provided at least five workdays prior to his or her final day of employment, the employee submits a written election to his or her appointing power authorizing the state employer to tender payment for any or all leave to be contributed on a pretax basis to the employee's account in a state-sponsored supplemental retirement plan as described under Sections 401(k), 403(b), or 457 of the Internal Revenue Code provided the plan allows those contributions. The contribution shall be tendered for payment to the employee's 401(k), 403(b), or 457 plan account no later than 45 days after the employee's last day of employment. Nothing in this section is intended to authorize contributions in excess of the annual deferral limits imposed under federal and state law or the provisions of the supplemental retirement plan itself. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a state employee quits, retires, or disability retires from his or her employment with the state, the employee may, at least five workdays prior to his or her final day of employment, submit a written election to his or her appointing power authorizing the state employer to defer into the next calendar year payment of any or all of the employee's unused or accumulated vacation, annual leave, holiday leave, sick leave to which the employee is otherwise entitled due to a disability, retirement, or time off to which the employee is entitled by reason of previous overtime work where compensating time off was given by the appointing power. To qualify for the deferral of payment under this section, only that portion of leave that extends past the November pay period for state employees shall be deferred into the next calendar year under this section may do any of the following: (1) Contribute the entire payment to his or her 401(k), 403(b), or 457 plan account. (2) Contribute any portion of the deferred payment to his or her 401(k), 403(b), or 457 plan account and receive cash payment for the remaining noncontributed unused leave. (3) Receive a lump-sum payment for all of the deferred unused leave as described above. Payments shall be tendered under this section no later than February 1 in the year following the employee's last day of employment. Nothing in this section is intended to authorize contributions in excess of the annual deferral limits imposed under federal and state law or the provisions of the supplemental retirement plan itself.
203. If an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in accordance with Sections 201, 201.5, 202, and 205.5, any wages of an employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefor is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days. An employee who secretes or absents himself or herself to avoid payment to him or her, or who refuses to receive the payment when fully tendered to him or her, including any penalty then accrued under this section, is not entitled to any benefit under this section for the time during which he or she so avoids payment. Suit may be filed for these penalties at any time before the expiration of the statute of limitations on an action for the wages from which the penalties arise.
221. It shall be unlawful for any employer to collect or receive from an employee any part of wages theretofore paid by said employer to said employee.
222. It shall be unlawful, in case of any wage agreement arrived at through collective bargaining, either wilfully or unlawfully or with intent to defraud an employee, a competitor, or any other person, to withhold from said employee any part of the wage agreed upon.
222.5. No person shall withhold or deduct from the compensation of any employee, or require any prospective employee or applicant for employment to pay, any fee for, or cost of, any pre-employment medical or physical examination taken as a condition of employment, nor shall any person withhold or deduct from the compensation of any employee, or require any employee to pay any fee for, or costs of, medical or physical examinations required by any law or regulation of federal, state or local governments or agencies thereof.
223. Where any statute or contract requires an employer to maintain the designated wage scale, it shall be unlawful to secretly pay a lower wage while purporting to pay the wage designated by statute or by contract.
226. (a) Every employer shall, semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, furnish each of his or her employees, either as a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee's wages, or separately when wages are paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, except for any employee whose compensation is solely based on a salary and who is exempt from payment of overtime under subdivision (a) of Section 515 or any applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and his or her social security number, except that by January 1, 2008, only the last four digits of his or her social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security number may be shown on the itemized statement, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. The deductions made from payments of wages shall be recorded in ink or other indelible form, properly dated, showing the month, day, and year, and a copy of the statement or a record of the deductions shall be kept on file by the employer for at least three years at the place of employment or at a central location within the State of California. (b) An employer that is required by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant to this code to keep the information required by subdivision (a) shall afford current and former employees the right to inspect or copy the records pertaining to that current or former employee, upon reasonable request to the employer. The employer may take reasonable steps to assure the identity of a current or former employee. If the employer provides copies of the records, the actual cost of reproduction may be charged to the current or former employee. (c) An employer who receives a written or oral request to inspect or copy records pursuant to subdivision (b) pertaining to a current or former employee shall comply with the request as soon as practicable, but no later than 21 calendar days from the date of the request. A violation of this subdivision is an infraction. Impossibility of performance, not caused by or a result of a violation of law, shall be an affirmative defense for an employer in any action alleging a violation of this subdivision. An employer may designate the person to whom a request under this subdivision will be made. (d) This section does not apply to any employer of any person employed by the owner or occupant of a residential dwelling whose duties are incidental to the ownership, maintenance, or use of the dwelling, including the care and supervision of children, or whose duties are personal and not in the course of the trade, business, profession, or occupation of the owner or occupant. (e) An employee suffering injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to comply with subdivision (a) is entitled to recover the greater of all actual damages or fifty dollars ($50) for the initial pay period in which a violation occurs and one hundred dollars ($100) per employee for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not exceeding an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000), and is entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney's fees. (f) A failure by an employer to permit a current or former employee to inspect or copy records within the time set forth in subdivision (c) entitles the current or former employee or the Labor Commissioner to recover a seven-hundred-fifty-dollar ($750) penalty from the employer. (g) An employee may also bring an action for injunctive relief to ensure compliance with this section, and is entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney's fees. (h) This section does not apply to the state, to any city, county, city and county, district, or to any other governmental entity, except that if the state or a city, county, city and county, district, or other governmental entity furnishes its employees with a check, draft, or voucher paying the employee's wages, the state or a city, county, city and county, district, or other governmental entity shall, by January 1, 2008, use no more than the last four digits of the employee's social security number or shall use an employee identification number other than the social security number on the itemized statement provided with the check, draft, or voucher.
Link for California Labor Code 351-356 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=05808422742+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
351. No employer or agent shall collect, take, or receive any gratuity or a part thereof that is paid, given to, or left for an employee by a patron, or deduct any amount from wages due an employee on account of a gratuity, or require an employee to credit the amount, or any part thereof, of a gratuity against and as a part of the wages due the employee from the employer. Every gratuity is hereby declared to be the sole property of the employee or employees to whom it was paid, given, or left for. An employer that permits patrons to pay gratuities by credit card shall pay the employees the full amount of the gratuity that the patron indicated on the credit card slip, without any deductions for any credit card payment processing fees or costs that may be charged to the employer by the credit card company. Payment of gratuities made by patrons using credit cards shall be made to the employees not later than the next regular payday following the date the patron authorized the credit card payment.
353. Every employer shall keep accurate records of all gratuities received by him, whether received directly from the employee or indirectly by means of deductions from the wages of the employee or otherwise. Such records shall be open to inspection at all reasonable hours by the department.
354. Any employer who violates any provision of this article is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment for not exceeding 60 days, or both.
Link for California Labor Code 432.5 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=05776520401+3+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
432.5. No employer, or agent, manager, superintendent, or officer thereof, shall require any employee or applicant for employment to agree, in writing, to any term or condition which is known by such employer, or agent, manager, superintendent, or officer thereof to be
Link for California Labor Code 450 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=lab&codebody=450&hits=20
450. (a) No employer, or agent or officer thereof, or other person, may compel or coerce any employee, or applicant for employment, to patronize his or her employer, or any other person, in the purchase of any thing of value. (b) For purposes of this section, to compel or coerce the purchase of any thing of value includes, but is not limited to, instances where an employer requires the payment of a fee or consideration of any type from an applicant for employment for any of the following purposes: (1) For an individual to apply for employment orally or in writing. (2) For an individual to receive, obtain, complete, or submit an application for employment. (3) For an employer to provide, accept, or process an application for employment.
Link for California Labor Code 510 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=05839828106+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
510. (a) Eight hours of labor constitutes a day's work. Any work in excess of eight hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek and the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of work in any one workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee. Any work in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay for an employee. In addition, any work in excess of eight hours on any seventh day of a workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay of an employee. Nothing in this section requires an employer to combine more than one rate of overtime compensation in order to calculate the amount to be paid to an employee for any hour of overtime work. The requirements of this section do not apply to the payment of overtime compensation to an employee working pursuant to any of the following: (1) An alternative workweek schedule adopted pursuant to Section 511. (2) An alternative workweek schedule adopted pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement pursuant to Section 514. (3) An alternative workweek schedule to which this chapter is inapplicable pursuant to Section 554. (b) Time spent commuting to and from the first place at which an employee's presence is required by the employer shall not be considered to be a part of a day's work, when the employee commutes in a vehicle that is owned, leased, or subsidized by the employer and is used for the purpose of ridesharing, as defined in Section 522 of the Vehicle Code. (c) This section does not affect, change, or limit an employer's liability under the workers' compensation law.
Link to California Labor Code 1174
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=lab&codebody=1174&hits=20
1174. Every person employing labor in this state shall: (a) Furnish to the commission, at its request, reports or information that the commission requires to carry out this chapter. The reports and information shall be verified if required by the commission or any member thereof. (b) Allow any member of the commission or the employees of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement free access to the place of business or employment of the person to secure any information or make any investigation that they are authorized by this chapter to ascertain or make. The commission may inspect or make excerpts, relating to the employment of employees, from the books, reports, contracts, payrolls, documents, or papers of the person. (c) Keep a record showing the names and addresses of all employees employed and the ages of all minors. (d) Keep, at a central location in the state or at the plants or establishments at which employees are employed, payroll records showing the hours worked daily by and the wages paid to, and the number of piece-rate units earned by and any applicable piece rate paid to, employees employed at the respective plants or establishments. These records shall be kept in accordance with rules established for this purpose by the commission, but in any case shall be kept on file for not less than two years.
1174.5. Any person employing labor who willfully fails to maintain the records required by subdivision (c) of Section 1174 or accurate and complete records required by subdivision (d) of Section 1174, or to allow any member of the commission or employees of the division to inspect records pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1174, shall be subject to a civil penalty of five hundred dollars ($500).
Link to California Labor Code 1198
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=0587733572+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
1198. The maximum hours of work and the standard conditions of labor fixed by the commission shall be the maximum hours of work and the standard conditions of labor for employees. The employment of any employee for longer hours than those fixed by the order or under conditions of labor prohibited by the order is unlawful.
Link to California Labor Code 2802
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=0589285234+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
2802. (a) An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer, even though unlawful, unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed them to be unlawful. (b) All awards made by a court or by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement for reimbursement of necessary expenditures under this section shall carry interest at the same rate as judgments in civil actions. Interest shall accrue from the date on which the employee incurred the necessary expenditure or loss. (c) For purposes of this section, the term "necessary expenditures or losses" shall include all reasonable costs, including, but not limited to, attorney's fees incurred by the employee enforcing the rights granted by this section.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Gold Club Class Action
1 NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION TO ALL INDIVIDUALS WHO WORKED AS DANCERS AT THE GOLD CLUB, LOCATED AT 650 HOWARD STREET IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, FROM MAY 24, 2000 UNTIL FEBRUARY 18, 2004. YOU MAY BE A MEMBER OF A CLASS OF PERSONS WHO SUED THE GOLD CLUB. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, WHICH IS DESCRIBED BELOW, YOU SHOULD CAREFULLY READ THIS NOTICE BECAUSE IT WILL AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS. THIS COURT-ORDERED NOTICE IS NOT AN EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION BY THE COURT AS TO THE MERITS OF ANY OF THE CLAIMS OR DEFENSES ASSERTED BY EITHER SIDE IN THIS LITIGATION. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE IS TO INFORM YOU OF THE LAWSUIT SO THAT YOU CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION AS TO WHETHER YOU SHOULD REMAIN IN OR OPT OUT OF THIS CLASS ACTION. BACKGROUND OF CASE The Plaintiffs in this lawsuit are three former dancers at the Gold Club, who performed under the stage names “Grace,” “Kili” and “Debra.” The Plaintiffs sued Defendants SOLID GOLD, INC., TOP SHELF ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and GOLD CLUB – SF, LLC. At the Plaintiffs’ request, the Court authorized this lawsuit to proceed as a class action and appointed the Plaintiffs to act as the Class Representatives on behalf of all dancers who worked at the Gold Club from May 24, 2000 until February 18, 2004. This group of dancers is known as the Class or the Class Plaintiffs. The Court also appointed the attorneys listed below as Class counsel to provide legal representation to each Class member. The Class alleges that Defendants violated California law by treating Class members as independent contractors, when those persons were in fact employees of one or more of the Defendants. Defendants deny the Class' allegations and assert that Class members were properly treated as independent contractors, not employees. The Court has not yet ruled whether Class 2 members were independent contractors or employees. If the Class is successful in this action, all of the persons who are members of the Class may be entitled to receive a monetary recovery. DEFINITION OF CLASS On June 8, 2005, the Court entered an order certifying the Class, which is defined as follows: All entertainers who performed at the Gold Club at 650 Howard Street in San Francisco from May 24, 2000 through February 18, 2004. TRIAL DATE This class action is currently set for trial on October 11, 2005 in the California Superior Court for the County of San Francisco. AUTOMATIC INCLUSION IN CLASS; RIGHT TO OPT-OUT OF CLASS If you are a member of the class – that is, if you were a dancer at the Gold Club at any time between May 4, 2000 and February 18, 2004 - you have the following options: A. You will be automatically included in the Class unless you elect to exclude yourself from the class by September 24, 2005. B. You may exclude yourself from the Class by giving Class counsel notice as set forth below. You have the choice of remaining in the Class or being excluded from the Class. The choice has certain legal consequences, and you are advised to discuss your decision with an attorney. Class counsel will not contact you during the period that you may opt-out of the Class, from August 25, 2005 until September 24, 2005, although you may contact Class counsel should you wish. Defense counsel is not permitted to contact you during the opt-out period or at any time if you remain in the Class, because the Class was certified. IF YOU CURRENTLY DANCE AT THE GOLD CLUB, YOUR DECISION TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CLASS WILL NOT AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO DANCE AT THE CLUB 3 If you elect to be included in the Class: 1. You will be represented by the existing Class Representatives, who are identified as the named Plaintiffs above under their stage names, and by the attorneys appointed as counsel for the Class, who are identified below. You will be entitled to contact Class counsel regarding this litigation. After the opt-out period, Class counsel may also contact you to advise you regarding this litigation. Defendants and their attorneys are not permitted to contact you about this action. 2. You will receive notice of any proposed settlement or dismissal of Class claims, or any judgment entered in this action. 3. You will waive any right you may have to separately sue SOLID GOLD, INC., TOP SHELF ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and/or GOLD CLUB – SF, LLC. on any of the claims asserted in this class action and, instead, agree that your claims will proceed in the Superior Court for the County San Francisco as part of this class action. You will be bound by any judgment or other final disposition of the class lawsuit, whether favorable or unfavorable, subject to any right of appeal. You will not have the right to bring an individual action at a later date. 4. You will participate, upon proof of membership in the class and the filing of a proper claim form, in a distribution of funds, if any, recovered in the litigation. 5. Any records maintained by Defendants regarding your work at the Gold Club will be produced to Class counsel for use only in this litigation and will be kept confidential by Class counsel. Neither Defendants nor the Class Representatives, nor their counsel, shall disclose your legal names or last known addresses to anyone, unless you consent to the disclosure or the disclosure is ordered by the Court. If you elect to be excluded from the class: 1. You will not be bound by any disposition of the class action and you will retain any claims you may have against Defendants. You will have the right to appear in this action through your own attorney. 2. You will not share in any recovery which might be paid to Class members if the Class Representatives are successful in trial or as a result of any settlement. 4 COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF CLASS James A. Quadra Rebecca Bedwell-Coll Robert D. Sanford Moscone, Emblidge & Quadra LLP 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1240 San Francisco, California 94104-4238 Telephone: (415) 362-3599 Facsimile: (415) 362-7332 CHANGE OF ADDRESS If you move after receiving this notice and elect to remain in the Class, you should supply your name and correct address to: Counsel for the Plaintiff Class James A. Quadra Rebecca Bedwell-Coll Robert D. Sanford Moscone, Emblidge & Quadra LLP 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1240 San Francisco, California 94104-4238 Telephone: (415) 362-3599 Facsimile: (415) 362-7332
WHAT TO DO IF YOU WISH TO BE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOU DO NOT NEED TO TAKE ANY FURTHER ACTION, EXCEPT TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE ADDRESS TO THE CLASS ATTORNEYS, SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO. YOU SHOULD RETAIN ALL RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO YOUR WORK AT THE GOLD CLUB. IF YOU WISH TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST NOTIFY CLASS COUNSEL IN WRITING (SETTING FORTH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS) AT THE ADDRESS SET FORTH BELOW AND SUBMIT YOUR WRITTEN NOTICE IN AN ENVELOPE POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 24, 2005: James A. Quadra Rebecca Bedwell-Coll Robert D. Sanford Moscone, Emblidge & Quadra LLP 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1240 San Francisco, California 94104-4238 Telephone: (415) 362-3599 Facsimile: (415) 362-7332 5 YOU BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENSURING THAT YOUR NOTICE IS POSTMARKED BY THE DEADLINE. DO NOT CALL OR WRITE TO THE COURT OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT. ADDRESS ALL INQUIRIES IN WRITING TO THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE CLASS SET FORTH ABOVE. HON. JAMES L. WARREN JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
San Francisco Commission on the Status of Women Resolution Regarding Exotic Dancers.
Commission on the Status of Women: "Resolution Regarding £a6or Conditions of Exotic Dancers"
BE IT KNOWN That the Commission on the Status of Women of the City and County of San Francisco, hereby issues and authorizes by execution, by the subscribing Commissioners, the following findings and recommendations: WHEREAS, all women who work in San Francisco are entitled to a safe and secure workplace that is free from economic exploitation and harassment; ,
WHEREAS, the Commission has received complaints that women who work as exotic dancers in strip clubs in San Francisco are being subjected to economic exploitation and coerced prostitution; WHEREAS according to these complaints, owners and operators of strip clubs impose "stage fees" and other illegal fees that compel women to pay fees to work; WHEREAS complainants have also provided testimony that owners and operators of strip clubs have built private, non-transparent booths and/or private non-transparent rooms that are intentionally designed to facilitate acts of prostitution; WHEREAS the Commission on the Status of Women strongly believes that any and all forms of exploitation and coerced prostitution of women dancers must cease immediately; RESOLVED, The Commission on the Status of Women urges the Board of Supervisors and all city agencies with regulatory authority over these clubs to take immediate action to end any and all exploitative and coercive practices against exotic dancers, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission on the Status of Women requests that the City Attorney's Office develop legislation for review by the Commission, which would:
(1) make it unlawful for the owner or operator of any establishment in which women. provide live nude or semi-nude entertainment to charge, require, or demand that the women pay any fee, commission, tip, or any other consideration as a condition or prerequisite for providing said entertainment; and
(2) require owners and operators of strip clubs to post, in a conspicuous manner in an open and visible location within the club, and in an area to which patrons have access, a current comprehensive schedule of compensation for exotic dances, and in addition, require owners to notify the Commission on the Status of Women if/when they make any change to that schedule; and
(3) prohibit private, non-transparent booths or rooms in establishments in which women provide live nude or semi-nude entertainment; and .
(4) provide a mechanism or procedure for enforcement of the above provisions.
Andra Shorter, Preseident Angela Willians, Vice President
The Commission on the Status of Women of the City and County of San Francisco
March 23, 2005
resolution 2005-015
Monday, March 13, 2006
Local News Articles
PRIVACY WORRIES DON'T SHAKE UP STRIPPER CLASS ACTION
Pam Smith The Recorder 06-14-2005
Exotic dancers at the Gold Club aren't shy about much, but there are some things even they don't bare in public. That would be their real names. As the former bosses of the San Francisco establishment try to fend off a wage-and-hour class action, they're attempting to turn the dancers' penchant for privacy into a defense advantage. Defense counsel Edi Thomas tried to persuade a San Francisco Superior Court judge last week that certifying a class in the case would wind up trampling on many dancers' privacy rights. Many dancers are hard to contact -- often by design -- and moving ahead with a class action they don't know about would violate their right to due process, Thomas argued. Also, contacting them about the suit could compromise their privacy. Though Judge James Warren went ahead and certified the class anyway, he seemed concerned about some of Thomas' points. And the defense lawyer, a solo with offices in Michigan and San Diego, said she expected to resurrect them. "Because we think it's such an important issue, that will be raised again," Thomas said Thursday. "Dancers value their privacy, and I think it should be protected." The three class representatives, she's noted, filed their case under stage names. Lead class counsel James Quadra called the due process argument irrelevant. "It's a tactic," the San Francisco attorney said Thursday. "It's all about reducing the amount of money defendants pay out." The case began more than a year ago, when three dancers known as Grace, Kili and Debra sued the current and former owners of the club. The dancers allege that the owners treated their entertainers as independent contractors when they should have been employees. Calling it a "sham" arrangement, the women contend the club got the best of both worlds, controlling how the showgirls worked while eroding their tips with fees, and cheating them of hourly pay and other benefits. Solid Gold, the company that owned the Howard Street club for nearly all of the four years covered by the suit, says the women are far from victims. Thomas, who represents Solid Gold, asserts in court papers that the showgirls could take home upward of $500 a day "under these lucrative contracts." But merits aside, turning the trio's case into a class action would present "critical" due process problems, Thomas argued in briefs. Exotic dancers are an itinerant and extremely private lot, she contended. Those traits would make it difficult to locate the class members, an estimated 300 to 600 dancers who performed at the club between 2000 and 2004. "The recent history of dancer class actions bear[s] out that extremely few dancers ever receive notice, and fewer still participate -- ultimately resulting in dancers' having their due process rights trampled when their rights are adjudicated without their knowledge or meaningful consent," Thomas wrote. Even if they're reached, Thomas argued dancers will be "seriously disinclined" to take part in a class action. She filed declarations from four dancers who say they aren't interested in being part of the case. Signing her stage name, a dancer named "Autumn" wrote she wouldn't want to be considered an employee in this of all jobs. "I want to retain the freedom of choosing if, when and for whom I perform." Unsolicited contact about the case, Thomas added in her briefs, would invade the dancers' privacy and could even endanger some of them. In court Wednesday, Judge Warren seemed to leave the door open for more combat later, telling Thomas, "I think there are substantial, valid points there." But he agreed with Quadra that they should be dealt with after certification. "There are myriad ways" to get the word out to potential class members, and address the questions Thomas raised, Quadra said Thursday. His firm, Moscone, Emblidge & Quadra, has pointed out in briefs that state court rules contemplate methods from newspapers and magazines to the radio, TV and the Internet. (Thomas apparently doesn't think the club's dancers share an interest in current events. In one brief she writes that, while publishing a notice in the Wall Street Journal may work in a securities fraud case, "What sort of publication could reliably reach 300-500 itinerant former exotic dancers?") Though Thomas and Quadra's outfits were a study in contrasts last week, both are veterans of workplace battles at San Francisco's adult entertainment venues. Last year Thomas, who wore a leopard-print jacket to court Wednesday, successfully defended the Hungry I against a wrongful termination suit by one exotic dancer. A jury found Tracey Buel, the activist more popularly known as Daisy Anarchy, was not an employee of the club. The more conservatively garbed Quadra is also lead class counsel in a wage-and-hour case dancers have brought against the Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theatre.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1118666114674
COPS, D.A. TANGLE OVER SRIP CLUB RAIDS Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross Monday, July 12, 2004
More sparks are flying between San Francisco police and District Attorney Kamala Harris -- this time over the D.A.'s refusal to prosecute nine women the vice cops arrested on prostitution charges during raids at a couple of "theater" clubs a few weeks back.
"It just leaves me in amazement,'' says vice Capt. Tim Hettrich, who likened the D.A.'s inaction to "almost legalizing prostitution.''
The D.A.'s office sees it a bit differently -- calling the arrests "business as usual'' and saying that while the cops were all too eager to arrest the women, they all but ignored the club's owners and the alleged johns.
If it all sounds a bit political, that's because it is.
Sex clubs have long been a tricky proposition in liberal San Francisco politics. For years, the attitude -- especially under libertine former D.A. Terence Hallinan -- seemed to be, "Don't ask, don't tell,'' especially at clubs whose owners were involved in local politics.
Plus, there's always been the question of whether prostitutes are criminals or victims.
Then, when the new D.A. came into office, the vice squad -- under the supervision of Fajitagate hyper-investigator Joe Dutto -- decided the time had come to start a cleanup. He called the club prostitution "out of control.''
The first step was to send letters to a couple of dozen strip clubs warning that investigators would be checking on their business licenses and permits.
The cops' move apparently set off an alarm at the D.A.'s office. Because the next thing you know, everyone was having a sit-down at which the cops agreed to back off until Harris could come up with a game plan that included the police and the city attorney -- after ironing out such issues as "abuse of the dancers, police misconduct during arrests and selected enforcement,'' according to a D.A.'s statement.
And while the cops waited ... and waited ... the public complaints kept coming in. Eventually, they decided to move on their own.
A pair of stings followed, one at the Market Street Theater and the other at the New Century Theater on Larkin Street. In each case, three undercover officers said they were solicited for sex acts by female employees within minutes.
In all, nine women were arrested -- and so was the male general manager of the New Century, who was booked for allegedly keeping a house of ill repute.
The cops said they were slam-dunk cases, but Harris' office took one look at the arrests and tossed them all.
And the bad-mouthing began.
The D.A.'s office says that the cops acted out of hand and that rather than wasting time and money on raiding clubs, they should be on the streets fighting more serious crimes.
In fact, Harris' office said in its statement, "We have had no arrests of street-level pimps and johns.''
"That's an outright lie,'' countered Dutto, who says the cops arrest 50 to 70 johns every month. He also said juveniles picked up for prostitution are routinely interviewed in an attempt to get them to turn on their pimps.
As for the club raids, the cops say they were just doing their jobs.
"When we went out there, we found girls who were engaging in acts of prostitution in the (illegally enclosed) booths, and that's why we took action, '' Hettrich said.
This being San Francisco, there's always another card in the deck somewhere. In this case, it's the feeling in the D.A.'s office that the cops are trying to use busts as a way to embarrass Harris for her refusal to bring a death penalty case against the alleged killer of Officer Isaac Espinoza, a popular cop who was shot to death in the Bayview this past spring.
Hettrich called the "payback'' spin "absolutely B.S.''
Maybe, but it does underscore the still-testy feelings between the two camps down at the Hall of Justice
NAKED INJUSTICT
Strippers say club owner greed and lax city oversight are forcing them into prostitution. December 17th 2003 By Ann Harrison
AMONG THE MANY unseemly legacies left behind by the outgoing administration at City Hall is the lack of enforcement of labor laws and city codes in San Francisco's strip clubs. For the past decade, dancers who work in these clubs have complained bitterly to an array of city agencies about alleged labor and safety violations in their workplaces. But under Mayor Willie Brown, the former personal attorney of strip club owner Sam Conti, little was done to enforce state and local laws designed to protect dancers from being exploited. Mayor-elect Gavin Newsom and district attorney-elect Kamala Harris will need to take a firm stand on enforcing labor rights for exotic dancers - as well as staking out a position on the growing movement to decriminalize prostitution in San Francisco - if the situation is going to change. "In 1996, when Willie Brown came into office, we were told by the manager of the Market Street Cinema that now that Brown is mayor, they could do whatever they want," said Daisy Anarchy, a dancer who worked at the Market Street Cinema strip club and founded an advocacy group called Sex Workers Organized for Labor, Human and Civil Rights. "At the beginning of 1996, the fees that dancers at the club were charged to work went from an illegal stage fee of $25 for an eight-hour shift to a so-called commission system where dancers had to pay $360 to work an eight-hour shift." Dancers told the Bay Guardian these fees have led to increased competition and pressure to offer customers more than just a lap dance. Complaints verified Some dancers have sought redress through the labor courts. The California Labor Commissioner's Office has held more than 100 hearings involving dancers who have filed claims against San Francisco strip clubs for reimbursement of fees, wages, and tips they said were illegally taken from them by club owners. The commissioner has issued a series of decisions in these cases finding that dancers are employees, not independent contractors, and are entitled to minimum wage and all tips given to them by customers. Individual dancers have been awarded restitution ranging from a few hundred dollars to $40,000. "Stage fees per se are illegal. You cannot require an employee to pay an employer anything for the privilege of working," Labor Commissioner attorney Miles Locker told us. "Where you have case after case where you have rulings in favor of dancers and where clubs have to pay money to dancers, what you are hoping for is that employers say, 'This is costing us a lot of money; we have to comply with the law.' " But dancers charge that many clubs, with the exception of the unionized Lusty Lady, still make them pay to work. Locker acknowledges the agency's Bureau of Field Enforcement has limited resources to investigate ongoing violations. He notes that any state or private attorney can ask the court to issue an injunction forcing a club's owners to follow labor laws and then fine or jail them for contempt of court if they refuse to comply. Recently passed state legislation allows for private enforcement of the entire Labor Code and a significant increase in potential civil penalties. "Enforcement has to happen at the local, state, and federal level because these are state and federal labor laws that are supposed to be protecting the workers," Johanna Breyer, cofounder of the Exotic Dancer's Alliance, told us. "But unfortunately, it doesn't filter down that way." Forced to sue Back in 1997 the District Attorney's Office indicated it would bring an unfair-business-practices case against San Francisco strip clubs. The decision grew out of two meetings at City Hall that year to address the dancers' complaints attended by representatives from an array of city agencies. But the case never went forward. Fed up with inaction by city agencies, the dancers hired their own lawyers to enforce the labor laws. In June 2002 three former dancers from the Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theatre filed a class action lawsuit against the well-known strip club's parent company. The suit, which represents approximately 353 dancers employed by the club in the past four years, alleges the club engaged in fraud, improperly took a large fraction of dancers' tips, failed to pay them minimum wage, and charged them illegal stage fees that lawyers say amounted to $360 an evening shift. The suit is seeking injunctive relief and is scheduled to go to trial in March 2004. An earlier class action lawsuit against the club ended in settlement in 1998. Defendants in that case were represented by attorney Kate Dyer, who did not reply to repeated requests for comment. In March 2003 another class action lawsuit, also alleging illegal taking of tips and imposition of stage fees of at least $300 a shift, was brought by three anonymous dancers against the Market Street Cinema and Century Theater strip clubs. "If any class plaintiff failed to pay a sham stage fee, defendants would suspend the class plaintiff from working another shift until the sham stage fee was paid in full," the complaint reads. "Defendants encouraged class plaintiffs to engage in illegal sexual activity at [Market Street Cinema] in order to make enough money to pay the sham stage fee." Vixon, who has worked in San Francisco's strip industry for six years, told us things have gotten worse. "The problem is de facto coerced prostitution because in this climate, all the factors lead to prostitution at lower and lower rates," she said. "Women who don't want to do this compete with women who want to do it, or have to do it. Are you going to do a lap dance for $30 or a hand job for $40?" Strip club cartel Named in the 2003 lawsuit are Sam Conti and Deja Vu, Inc., which lists on its Web site 11 of San Francisco's 17 strip clubs in its "access info for 60+ Deja Vu clubs." The suit alleges Deja Vu is part owner of the clubs, but the company purportedly has tried to blur the ownership issue. "[Deja Vu] are saying they are not an in-state corporation and they don't have a contact in California and therefor they can't be sued," Lisa Duarte, the plaintiffs' attorney, said. Duarte says her clients are seeking injunctive relief, restoration of unpaid wages, and an order that defendants will follow the law. "This would be a ripe area for the new D.A. to look at," she said. Attorney Linda Toutant, who represents defendants in the case, declined to comment. Attorney Edi Thomas, who represents defendants Bijou Market and Bijou Century in the 2003 lawsuit, denies the allegations of labor violations and says those accused will launch a vigorous defense. "Allegations that the clubs encouraged illegal sexual activity and maintain 'illegal' private rooms are vehemently denied," Thomas wrote in a statement. "Such malicious allegations slander not only the industry and the clubs, but the women who work as dancers at those businesses and engage in a legitimate profession fraught by public disrespect and unfair, anti-adult industry politics." Official inaction Some dancers say the combination of illegal fees and private booths or rooms at the clubs, the interiors of which are not visible from the outside as required by the San Francisco Police Code, put them at a higher risk for assault by customers who want more than a lap dance. Between 1996 and 1999, Anarchy said at least five dancers filed police reports and taped statements complaining of coercion and assault inside private booths, and three others were willing to come forward. "I have been assaulted in private rooms, in private cubicles, because you don't have the security of being out in the open," said Sapphire, who filed a police report in 1998. "It happens all the time; women get raped in these spaces." Anarchy said the D.A.'s Office never contacted the women to follow up on any of the complaints regarding booths or coercion. District Attorney Terence Hallinan said his office attempted to conduct an independent investigation but the charges were hard to substantiate. "If it's one person's word against another, the other usually wins with a jury that has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt," Hallinan told us. In 1999 the San Francisco Police Department launched a 14-month investigation of the 19 strip clubs the city had at that time. Club owners were summoned to a meeting in which police listed 14 city and country ordinances the clubs had violated, including the booth laws, according to documents reviewed by the Bay Guardian. Police investigators documented conditions at each club, took photos, and filed reports. But according to Lt. Joe Dutto of the SFPD vice squad, investigators never went back to see if the clubs complied. Dutto says the police are again preparing to send letters to the clubs informing them of the laws. "As for the booth citations," Sgt. Neville Gittens of the SFPD Public Affairs Unit said, "if it is something that needs to be done, we will go ahead and start doing it. Chief Fagan said that we will start enforcing it." Whether helping the strippers is "something that needs to be done" will probably be determined by the priorities of whomever Newsom chooses to replace Alex Fagan Sr. and by whether Harris takes a more aggressive posture than Hallinan has. Harris told us she will conduct her own investigation of the situation, whether or not the police cite club owners. "Because there are so many complaints and they have been coming in for such a long time, there is enough there to prompt an inquiry from law enforcement," Harris said. "This is a story that has been covered up for a long time." Beyond the booths Not everyone agrees policing the booths will improve working conditions for dancers, whether or not they can be settings for prostitution. Many who support labor rights for strippers say decriminalizing prostitution is potentially far more effective than attempting to stamp out the market for sex. Sex worker activist Carol Leigh told us cracking down on conditions that allow for prostitution in the clubs exposes women to arrest and simply moves prostitutes to other locations. Breyer agreed: "Outlawing private booths is a Band-Aid effort and does not address anything substantive in the long run except putting women out there as victims, which unfortunately in this case, gets them arrested." She said the real issue is not the booths themselves, but what the stage fees and other labor law violations force strippers to do in those booths. "Once you remove the economic pressure, you are talking about an entirely different situation, and you can have private booths or not," she said. "If people are not properly compensated, it doesn't matter where they are working, they are going to do whatever they need to do to earn a living." Sapphire said some dancers will be outraged if police begin enforcing the booth laws. But she says the women at the clubs should be asked a simple question: If you don't have to be in a private space with a customer, and if you don't have to do prostitution, would you do it? "I'm sure you would rather lap dance with a customer than have sex with them if it could make the same amount of money," Sapphire said. Vixon says the problem is not women in the clubs who don't want to offer sexual services but a system that allows for these encounters to happen only in the clubs. Vixon and other dancers say the long-term answer is decriminalizing prostitution. A U.S. chapter of the Sex Workers Outreach Project has drafted prostitution decriminalization initiatives for Berkeley and San Francisco and proposed statewide legislation, which it hopes will be introduced by Mark Leno. SWOP-USA is a sister project to a similar group in Australia that recently successfully advocated for the decriminalization of prostitution there. SWOP-USA founder Robyn Few told us that while legalization of prostitution typically creates a brothel model like Nevada's, decriminalization removes existing prostitution laws and allows women to work for themselves - as opposed to allowing the strip clubs to corner the brothel business. "By taking prostitutes off the streets and putting them into the strip clubs, it has turned our strip clubs into brothels and massage parlors," Few said. "The men who run these joints are making all the money, and the women who want to be dancers can't. They are forced to be prostitutes."
http://www.sfbg.com/38/12/news_injustice.html
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Protection Order in Jones vs Dejavu
Case 3:05-cv-00997 -BZ Document 52 Filed 05/04/2005 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 I KIMBERLY JONES, et al.,
12
Plaintiff(s) ,
No. C 05-0997 BZ
13
v.
SEALING AND PROTECTIVE ORDER 14 I DEJA VU, INC., et al.,
15
Defendant(s) .
16
17
Having reviewed plaintiffs' ex parte motion to seal 18
and for a protective order, the opposition, the reply, and 19
the declarations filed in support of plaintiffs' motion for 20 preliminary injunction that have been filed under seal, and 21
for the reasons discussed at the hearing, I find that at 22
this stage of the litigation, the need of Jane Roes 1-5 for 23
anonymity outweighs any prejudice to the opposing party and 24
the public's interest in knowing the identity of the Jane 25
Roe plaintiffs. See Does 1 Thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile 26
Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2000). I believe 27
there may be ways of managing this litigation such that the 28
1
Case 3:05-cv-00997 -BZ Document 52 Filed 05/04/2005 Page 2 of 2 1 I identities of the Roe plaintiffs may become less 2 I significant than in the usual litigation. I further 3 I believe there may be ways of disclosing the identity of the 4 I plaintiffs to less than all of the defendants' employees 5 I and agents while not prejudicing defendants ability to 6 I defend themselves. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 I 1) The Clerk of the Court is directed to seal the 8 I declarations and consents of the five Jane Roe plaintiffs 9 I filed in this case, 10 I 2) Pending further order, the declarations, consents 11 I and identities of Jane Roes 1-5 shall be disclosed only to 12 I Edith A. Thomas, Michael B. Margolis, Laura M. Toutant, and 13 I Douglas J. Melton, and may not be shared, disseminated or 14 otherwise disclosed to any other individual or entity, 15 I including employees or agents of any defendant, and 16 I 3) Plaintiffs' counsel shall serve forthwith a copy of 17 I the sealed declarations filed in support of plaintiffs' 18 I motion for a preliminary injunction on the attorneys 19 I specified in this order. 20 I 4) A status conference is scheduled for May 23, 2005 21 I at 3:00 p.m. to consider the case management ideas 22 I discussed during the hearing. Each party shall file and 23 I serve a case management proposal by May 20, 2005. 24 I Dated: May 4, 2005 25 /s/ Bernard Zimmerman Bernard Zimmerman United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28 G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\DEJA VU\PROTECTlVE.ORD.wpd 2

|

|