Judge Engelmayer wrote 65-page exotic dancer opinion ...
without one joke or pun. Market isn't taking NY opinion seriously enough ... there could be some significant bucks at stake. That's probably why he didn't want to make light of it ... you know, laughing while the defendant goes bankrupt.
Wait ... he did have some subtle humor. He said the defendant CEO's deposition testimony sealed the deal for the dancers' case:
"And, in testimony that eviscerated Rick's NY's argument on this point, Langan, the president of all three defendant corporations, acknowledged that "the most important thing to the [Rick's Cabaret] brand is that [it has] entertainers." Langan 10/7/09 Dep. 76. He added: "[W[ithout the girls, we're just selling overpriced beers at a sports bar with bad TV's." Id. at 182. The Court finds that the presence of dancers at Rick's NY was integral to the success of the Club."
Ironically, the judge stated that summary judgment must look at each point in the defendants favor before passing a ruling. Yet, the judge passed over many facts that would be in Ricks favor on the economics test of employment. For example, on behavior control.....factors like tranmittability of work (dancers can work for multiple clubs or on there own), method of entertaining or severability of service without liability would be in Ricks favor. Yet, the judge decided to mainly focus on rules geared towards venue preservation. On the integral to the success of the business.....the rule is supposed to focused on the integralness of any one dancer, not the entire group of dancers. No one dancer is integral to Ricks. Under such a definition.....lawyers, accountants, authors, personal trainers and many more professions commonly using ICs would be in violation of such a definition.
Either way, the stakes involved in this specific case are around the $5M mark. That isn't a sum that will remotely threaten the viability of Ricks as a going concern anytime soon! Once again, you are promoting a ficticious story line to back your opinions.