The State of Stripping: Employee Misclassification at the Club

Employee misclassification is one of the most commonplace ways employers participate in wage theft. In many industries, this means classifying workers as independent contractors despite holding them to employee-specific standards. The strip club industry is rampant with this type of misclassification, with a recent statistic showing that at least one dancer files against their employer for misclassification every four days. Dancers have been fighting and organizing for better working conditions for decades. The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced another layer of hazard to the field. With the misclassification of many dancers as independent contractors came the inability to receive unemployment at the beginning of the pandemic. Many IC’s were left without income before the CARES Act. The Act gave each state the ability to expand benefits to independent contractors.  However, the Act does not undo the decades of work and struggle many in the industry have endured.

Return to Work, Risk, and Reward

When reopening began, strip clubs were on standby until they were able to introduce additional safety protocols for patrons and dancers. Clubs began to impose new rules regarding contact with customers, socially distanced dances, and masks. These rules, while intended to protect both customers and dancers, brought additional hardship into the workplace. Many dancers already struggle with mistreatment from management and patrons alike prior to the pandemic. Multiple lawsuits have been brought against clubs regarding treatment of African-American dancers and sexual abuse, while a plethora of stripper-run blogs report on individual dancer mistreatment. Many dancers have reported that clubs are reporting higher turnout rates than usual. This increase in contact (even with social-distancing measures) increases potential exposure to the virus, on top of other workplace risks dancers are already exposed to.

At the beginning of the pandemic, a video went viral of dancer Genea Sky falling from a pole while working at XTC Cabaret. Genea did not have any accident insurance provided to her as an independent contractor at the club. She did not have insurance or other legal protections. Crowd-sourcing her medical expenses helped Genea during crisis, as has been many American’s experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Her status as an independent contractor, rather than an employee, at the time of her fall prevented her from receiving benefits and protections from the club.

The additional risk of contracting COVID-19 into the club setting without a promise of medical care, FMLA, or other resources many employees have access to shows a dangerous bind that many dancers face. The historic lack of protections for gig workers and independent contractors have sparked unionization efforts for decades, and the strip club industry has remained at the forefront. The ongoing effort to unionize strip clubs throughout America has grown increasingly vital during the pandemic, and the forward momentum for the movement does not seem to be slowing down.

Dancer Unionization Efforts: Then and Now

In early August of 2020, a ruling from the National Labor Relations Board determined that a Columbus, Ohio dancer was, in fact, a statutory employee under Ohio  Law.  The dancer, Brandi Campbell, was involved in many lawful union organizing efforts at a variety of strip clubs throughout years. Her termination shortly after her hiring at Centerfold was for an apparent no-touching violation. This ruling came in a crucial moment in the strip club labor organizing movement. As previously mentioned, when states like Ohio began rolling out phase-based reopening plans, many dancers found themselves in an increasingly difficult position: return to work with few protections, or stay home and lose their Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) benefits? Along with many other service industry workers, many dancers made the difficult decision to put their well-being on the line and return to work. These factors, combined with the years of hard work and labor organizing done by strippers across the nation, have brought opportunity for change and protection in the industry.

The efforts put for to organize exotic dancers and adult entertainers are pivotal in combating employee misclassification. All workers deserve fair pay and protection, and dancers are no exception. In times like these, worker solidarity is crucial to protecting the American people across industries.

Posted in Labor & Employment | No Comments »

House Bill 81 Changes Announced in Ohio

On June 16, 2020, Governor Mike DeWine signed into effect a new law. The ripple effects of the passage of this law will affect Ohioans seeking to claim Workers’ Compensation. The changes set out by House Bill 81 will go into effect on September 14, 2020.

The bills set out number of changes. Firstly, the bill codifies the voluntary abandonment doctrine. Under the voluntary abandonment doctrine, an employee who abandons employment for reasons unrelated to the work injury is not entitled to temporary total disability compensation or wage loss compensation. Additionally, House Bill 81 states that employers may no longer deny or withdraw consent to a workers’ compensation settlement application if the claim is outside of the period in which the employer’s Bureau of Worker’s Compensation rates are affected by the application, and if the employee is no longer employed by the employer.

Changes to the Standard

The standard for employees filing applications for additional awards due to a safety violation has changed as well. Applications for awards due to safety requirement violations must now be filed within one year after the date of the injury or disability. Previously, that standard was two years. Another specific section of the bill states that employees working in detention facilities, including corrections officers, are now covered by their employers for post-exposure medical diagnostic services. These are services that become necessary as a result of contact with blood or other bodily fluid, drugs or other chemical substance, and/or responding to an inherently dangerous situation while working. The bill also states that if an employee dies as a result of a workplace injury or occupational disease, the employee’s estate is entitled to $7,500.00 in funeral expenses. This is an increase from the previously allowed $5,000.00.

It’s noteworthy that these changes came on amidst the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and likely are influenced by these events. The new coverage of employees working in detention facilities may be a response to the pandemic. Employers are now required to cover medical diagnostic services for illnesses that result for exposure to bodily fluid. COVID-19 is transmitted through bodily fluid- airborne droplet transmission- and the Ohio incarceration system has been surging with cases.

What Can I Do?

If you have questions, attorneys with Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox, LLP, are available to help with Ohio workers’ compensation and personal injury cases in Columbus and across the state. You can schedule a free consultation online of speak with a lawyer directly by calling (614) 221-4221.

Posted in Workers’ Compensation | No Comments »

Last night, associate attorney Sam Marcellino participated in WSYX ABC 6’s “Ask the Attorney.” Socially distant, safe, and ready to help Ohioans!

Ask the Attorney occurs on Wednesday evenings between 5:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. You can call in at 614-481-6848

Posted in News & Media | No Comments »

Severance Agreements Changes to Combat COVID-19 Related Economic Loss

In the era of COVID-19, many employers are attempting to lower their bottom line. Many employers turn to measures affecting workers, such as buying out employees close to retirement, mass lay-offs, and the issuance of severance agreements among all levels of companies.

What You Need To Know about Severance Agreement

Although workers often feel powerless during the discussions of a severance agreement with an employer, it is important to realize that often the employer is asking for something from the worker in return for the agreement. This makes it reasonable for the employee to attempt negotiation. Employers often want to ensure that they limit their future liability for lawsuits and other claims. This necessitates that most severance agreement to contain a waiver of such claims by the employee. While certainly the employer has the ultimate power- as a severance agreement is not legally required to terminate employment in an at-will employment setting- employees can also exert some power to negotiate based on their willingness to release potential current and future claims against the employer.

Another factor to consider is whether you will be subject to a Non-Compete Agreement upon the end of your employment. Non-Compete Agreements are typically upheld in Ohio and can be difficult to navigate when searching for your next position. This can often be a sticking point in negotiations of a severance package and can have broad implications for your future job search.

How We Can Help

The employers have attorneys on their side and you should too. Assistance in reviewing and negotiation your severance agreement can be incredibly helpful in protecting your future. Clarity on your responsibilities and on any potential non-compete issues is crucial. An attorney’s review can lead to additional items or an increase of the payment or other terms. Speaking with an attorney gives you the opportunity to discuss what is most important in the negotiation, and to make those goals a priority. Our office offers flat-fee severance review and advice to anyone facing a severance package. Contact us at 614-221-4221 for more information.

– Jessica Doogan

Posted in Labor & Employment, Wage & Hour/Overtime Violations | No Comments »

 ADA Accommodations During COVID-19

For many Americans,returning to work amidst the COVID-19 crisis causes concern for the health and safety of themselves their families. Since the declaration of a global pandemic, America’s most vulnerable citizens have been at the forefront of conversation about preventing the spread. Many “healthy” citizens are not considered at-risk for COVID-19, while those with pre-existing conditions are especially susceptible. Nevertheless, America is re-opening its economy. This leaves individuals with disabilities and pre-existing health conditions in an unwinnable battle. Should they attempt to return to work despite their condition or continue to stay home and risk income? Will the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) help them?

Limitations of the ADA

We recommend that if you have health and safety concerns, you express those concerns in writing to your employer. If you have an underlying medical condition or care for someone who does,  contact your doctor to ask about accommodations under the ADA.

The ADA prevents employers from denying employment based on an individual’s status as disabled. The ADA also calls for employers to provide sufficient accommodations for those individuals. New difficulties will continue to rise for disabled individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic and foreseeable future. Employment laws in America are about to undergo an unprecedented wave of new applications, potential violations, and changes. How can employees trust their employer will respect and comply with laws, when the laws themselves are not necessarily equipped to protect them in these uncertain times?

What’s Next?

It is hard to give an affirming answer to employees during uncertain times. However, workers can contact the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to file a complaint if their employer is not adhering to safe practices and may explore the possibility of a workers’ compensation claim if the worker contracts the COVID-19 as a result of returning to work at the employer’s insistence.

Posted in Labor & Employment, News & Media, Workers’ Compensation | No Comments »

Updates for DACA Recipients in 2020

On June 18, 2020, another long-awaited Supreme Court ruling regarding the status of those participating in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was decided. The decision was made up of a variety of different elements including holding that the Trump administration did not properly terminate the existing DACA program, that DACA program as of the decision will be completely restored as it existed prior to the rescission in 2017, and, most importantly, that current DACA recipients will continue to be protected from deportation and have their employment authorized. Also, new DACA applicants will be able to apply for deportation protection and employment authorization as soon as the DHS implements the Supreme Court decision.

The much-deliberated DACA recipients are undocumented individuals that were brought into the United States as children under 16. Individuals that qualify for the program receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and will become eligible for a work permit. To qualify for the program, recipients cannot have felonies or serious misdemeanors on their criminal records as well as must have completed certain educational requirements. It should be noted that individuals in the program don’t necessarily receive citizenship status through participation in DACA, just the deferral of deportation actions.

The program was started in 2012 under President Obama amidst an elevated amount of undocumented high school graduates in the US. Presently, approximately 700,000 people nationwide are participants in the DACA program and 3,880 of them live in Ohio alone. The Supreme Court decision regarding the program arose from President Trump attempting to completely rescind the program through an Executive Order in September of 2017.

The 5-4 decision comes as good news for some employers as they can continue to legally employ DACA recipients. However, DACA participants should note that they need to file timely applications to renew their protections.  The decision still raises some questions. The Supreme Court did not discuss or decide on the general legality of DACA.  Because of this, the decision essentially reads as saying that DACA participants are safe in the United States “for now” and leaves open the possibly for another decision to change the status of the DACA program and its participants in the future.

– Audrey Bidwell

Posted in Labor & Employment, News & Media | No Comments »

For Immediate Release:

COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST THE OHIO GOREMATORY, LLC

LORAIN COUNTY OHIO, May 18^th, 2020- Attorneys with Barkan Meizlish DeRose Wentz McInerney Peifer, LLP have filed a Collective Action lawsuit against the Ohio Gorematory, LLC in Loraine County Common Pleas court. The Ohio Gorematory, based in Lorain County, Ohio, is a seasonal haunted house. The complaint’s defined plaintiff class includes employees who worked for the Ohio Gorematory, LLC between May 12, 2017 until present, and names the company Ohio Gorematory, LLC and each of the owners as Defendants. An amended complaint was filed on May 22nd

The Complaint brings claims of wage theft and minor labor law violations against the owners, citing the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, O.R.C. 4111 et seq., (“the Ohio Wage Act”), the Ohio Prompt Pay Act (“OPPA”), O.R.C. § 4113.15 (referred to collectively as “the Ohio Acts”), Ohio minor labor laws, O.R.C §§ 4109 et seq. These violations include employees, called “scare actors,” not being paid for their work either entirely or in part, not paying the Ohio state minimum wage, and working long days with improper breaks for minors. Individuals who believe themselves affected by this action can contact Barkan Meizlish DeRose Wentz McInernery Peifer, LLP via email at consents@barkanmeizlish.com or at 800-274-5297.

Plaintiffs’ Attorney, Jessica Doogan, official statement: “Wage theft is a pervasive issue that should not, and cannot, be tolerated in any form. This case is especially egregious, as the employer here took advantage of high school age minors that were looking for a fun way to make extra money during the Halloween season. We intend to fight for our clients to receive the unpaid wages they are owed and will work with our clients and local authorities to pursue criminal prosecution of this employer for the child labor law violations it committed.”

You can read a copy of the complaint here.

For more information on the lawsuit and the opt-in process, you can refer to our Wage and Hour department website here.

Posted in News & Media, Wage & Hour/Overtime Violations | No Comments »

Recent Law Changes and LGBT Worker Protections

Using the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that it unlawful to discriminate against an employee on the basis of their sexuality and gender identity. Now LGBTQ+ workers have a legal recourse to pursue workplace discrimination claims, even in states that do not already have protections in place. The 6-3 decision was a consolidation of three cases: Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia; Altitude Express v. Zarda; and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC. The majority ruled this way as they reasoned that “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”

To prove an employment discrimination claim, an employee must prove either disparate treatment or discriminatory harassment. Generally, this means an employee must prove they are a member of a protected class, that their employer or workplace harasser knew that they were a member of a protected class, that they were harmed by the actions of their employer or harasser, and finally, that others of that class were similarly treated or that the harassment was because of their status as a member of a protected class. The Supreme Court also held that although there can be multiple “but for” causes of employee discrimination, termination, or harassment, if any of them are because of a protected classification then there has been a violation of federal law.

This landmark case will be a drastic change for the 27 states that prior to this decision did not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status. These states include: Arizona, Michigan, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. This may mean employers in these states will need to offer new anti-discrimination training and update their employee handbooks regarding gender and sexuality issues in the workplace.

However, this decision does not provide all the answers that employees will need regarding gender and sexuality-minorities in the workplace. The Supreme Court themselves noted there will likely be more cases in the future that further addressing the extent and influence of this opinion. For example, the disputes over restrooms and other gender-specific facilities being available for transgender employees may still be an issue as well as mandating certain healthcare benefits for transgender employees and potential religious liberty claims.

-Audrey Bidwell

Posted in Labor & Employment, News & Media | No Comments »

Updates as of 2/2/2021

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Susan D. Morrison, granted Plaintiffs’ FLSA 216(b) motion for conditional certification. The Plaintiffs, three Nationwide Children’s’ Hospital psychometricians who brought federal and Ohio wage claims against the Defendant for failing to pay them and their similarly situated co-workers for work performed before and after their scheduled shift and failing to pay all hour over 40 in a workweek at 150% of their regular rate. All psychometricians who are or have been employed by Nationwide Children’s Hospital over the last three years are now eligible to receive communications regarding joining the suit. Morris, et al., v. Nationwide Children’s Hospital 2021 WL 320740 (S.D. OH February 1, 2021).

The decision can be found by clicking this link: MORRIS et al v NATIONWIDE CHILDRENS_2021WL320740

Original Post Below:

For Immediate Release:

COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST NATIONWIDE CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL

On June 24, 2020 Attorneys with Barkan Meizlish DeRose Wentz McInerney Peifer, LLP filed a federal collective and Ohio class action Complaint against Nationwide Children’s Hospital.

According to the Complaint, Nationwide Children’s Hospital (“NCH”) participated in acts of wage theft against employees in the Psychometric position. These violations include failure to compensate employees for all hours worked and failure to pay overtime, in violation of the Federal Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§201, et seq., the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act [“the Ohio Wage Act”], O.R.C. §§4111.01., 4111.03 and 4111.10, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act [“the OPPA”].

Natalie Morris, a psychometrician, brought this lawsuit on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated current and former NCH psychometricians who worked for NCH since June 24, 2017. Originally, an unnamed NCH psychometrician filed a wage theft complaint against NCH with the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”). In response to that complaint the DOL investigated. While the substance of that investigation is not public, the DOL and NCH are attempting to resolve all the psychometrician’s wage claims by offering a lump-sum payment to affected employees. This lawsuit was brought by Ms. Morris to secure complete payment of all the hours she is owed.  She also brought this lawsuit to obtain payment for all the hours owed on behalf of all current and former NCH psychometricians who worked for NCH since June 24, 2017.

Plaintiffs’ Attorney, Robert E. DeRose official statement:

“Although the DOL investigated this case, it is apparent from the facts that Nationwide Children’s Hospital did not have a good faith basis for paying its psychometricians the way it did and that is wage theft. Wage theft in any form cannot be tolerated.  The hospital willfully paid these employees in violation of the wage laws and they should be paid for three years of time and liquidated damages.  The amount the hospital is trying to pay to get out of trouble is far below what the employees are due.  That is why the court will decide this case.”

A copy of the complaint can be found here

About Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox, LLP: The law firm of Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox, LLP is over sixty years old, with a national practice, focused on wage and hour/overtime litigation, worker’s compensation, Social Security disability, personal injury, and medical malpractice.

Posted in News & Media, Wage & Hour/Overtime Violations | No Comments »

Changing Workplace Culture during COVID-19

As with most aspects of life, COVID-19 has changed the daily routine of many workers. Today, the average worker is usually asked to have their temperature checked before beginning their workday. While the effectiveness of the practice in preventing the spread of the virus is debatable, the practice is currently required by many employers. Currently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency that enforces civil rights in the workplace, has stated that while conducting temperature checks does not violate the Americans With Disabilities Act, it may violate the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and some state employment compensation laws.

These temperature checks may be a violation of the FLSA because employees who have to spend several minutes waiting their turn for the check may be uncompensated for this time. The FLSA states that activities that are an “integral and indispensable part of the principal activities” of an employee are compensable. While activities that are preliminary and postliminary to principle activities are not compensable under the FLSA. When an employee cannot perform his “regular” job without first engaging in the preliminary activity, then the preliminary activity becomes ‘integral and indispensable’ and therefore compensable.

Temperature Checks and Compensation

These temperature checks could be argued to be ‘principle’ or ‘preliminary’ depending on your perspective. Time spent by employees putting on and taking off protective gear and walking between their work station and the protective gear changing areas were both deemed compensable activities. So, if we could liken the temperature check to being a protective measure against infecting their fellow employees like putting on protective gear would likely be a principle and compensable activity. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that time spent waiting to put on protective gear is not a compensable activity. Since waiting in line for the temperature check will likely be the most time-consuming activity, this activity may be considered preliminary and non- compensable.

Depending on how the federal or state courts rule on this issue, employers could face potential wage and hour claims related to this activity. It may be most advisable to employers to compensate the temperature checks before this becomes a litigated issue.

– Audrey Bidwell

Posted in News & Media, Wage & Hour/Overtime Violations | No Comments »