Sports & Leisure News
Second Cheerleader Joins California Labor Lawsuit
The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, was initially filed by Lacy T. in January 2014. Since that time, Sarah G. joined the lawsuit, which claims Raiderettes are not paid properly for all the hours they put into their time as a cheerleader. Specifically, they claim they are not paid minimum wage for all hours given to the Raiderettes. Although they are paid $125 per home game, they allege they are not paid for time spent at mandatory practices or mandatory promotional events.
Furthermore, they allege, if they fail to bring proper equipment or gear to their rehearsals, they can be fined. The lawsuit alleges, for example, that plaintiff Sarah G. was fined $10 for not handing in her written bio on time.
The plaintiffs also allege they have to pay out of pocket for cheerleading-related expenses such as travel expenses and hairstyling, even though the team provides a hairstylist they are forced to use. Finally, the lawsuit alleges, the cheerleaders do not get paid for their time spent cheerleading until the end of the season - months after their work for the team has begun.
According to the lawsuit (case number RG14710815, in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Alameda), Raiderettes must attend all preseason, regular season and postseason football games, even if they are benched for the game. They must also attend all practices, rehearsals, workouts preparations, drills, fittings, photo sessions, meetings, events and functions as directed by the Raiders.
The lawsuit alleges that the contract the cheerleaders are forced to sign contains provisions that violate California law, including a provision waiving legal claims against the Raiders. They are also allegedly prohibited from discussing the fees they receive with anyone.
The California Department of Labor is concerned enough that it is now investigating the Oakland Raiders’ treatment of its cheerleaders. Meanwhile, a similar lawsuit has been filed against the Cincinnati Bengals, alleging the Ben-Gals, the Bengals cheerleading team, is paid well under the Ohio minimum wage. That lawsuit is case number 1:14-cv-00136-MRB, Brenneman v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.
Cheerleader’s California Labor Code Lawsuit Gets Attention by the Feds
A handful of other teams have come under DOL scrutiny, suggesting that abuse could be more widespread. Chairman of the Center for Labor Research and Education at UC Berkley, Ken Jacobs, said in comments published in The San Francisco Chronicle (The Chronicle, 1/31/14) that such alleged violations of California labor code by the Oakland Raiders and other teams does not sit well from a public relations standpoint.
“I can imagine that this would be something the Raiders would want to resolve,” Jacobs said in comments published in The Chronicle. “If this practice is common for the other teams, you might very well see other investigations.”
Most in California are familiar with the story of Lacy T., a 28-year-old stay-at-home mom who has found fault with the pay practices of the venerable California football team. Not only can various fines and expenses, together with the loss of meal breaks, rest periods and overtime pay, eat into the effective hourly wage, but wages are also allegedly withheld until the end of the football season. As a result, according to the lawsuit, Raiderettes do not benefit from any infusion of cash while they are actively engaged with the club during the football season.
The plaintiff, who filed her lawsuit in Alameda County Court as a proposed class action, alleges that such practices violate labor laws. To that end, the newfound involvement of the federal DOL suggests that not just California labor employment law is being circumvented in such cases.
A spokesperson for the DOL’s regional office in San Francisco would not comment further on grounds that the matter is currently an open case. However, Jose Carnevali confirmed in comments published in The Chronicle that the federal investigation concerned “the team’s cheerleading squad,” and not merely the plaintiff who filed the lawsuit.
There have been other investigations around the country involving professional sports teams, with settlements in tow. The DOL recently announced an investigation into an allegation that interns with the Miami Marlins and the San Francisco Giants are unpaid.
This past August, according to The Chronicle, the San Francisco Giants paid $544,000 in back wages to 74 employees of the team following a federal investigation into various violations to California state labor laws over a three-year period.
Beyond the public relations hit a major sports team may incur as the result of an investigation into wage infractions, is the possibility of a costly settlement that could see a team spending more money at the end of the day than it otherwise might have spent had the enterprise simply paid proper wages, and adhered to California labor code from the beginning.
To that end, the DOL has the authority to mandate the reimbursement of owed wages at twice the rate of wages illegally withheld. The federal minimum wage currently sits at $7.25 per hour. The minimum wage observed by the state of California is currently $8 per hour, but is set to rise to $9 per hour in July, in accordance with California prevailing wage law.
Cheerleader Files California Labor Lawsuit
ERISA Not Just About Protecting Investments
employee stock plans, the truth is that ERISA covers much more than retirement plans. Included in ERISA benefits are insurance provided through an employer, meaning that any claims about employer-provided insurance are covered by ERISA.
Covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) are retirement, health, life insurance, and disability insurance plans. Covering only private employers, ERISA does not require employers to provide health insurance or other benefits plans; it simply sets out rules for when employers choose to offer such benefits. If employers choose not to offer benefits as covered by ERISA, they are not governed by ERISA rules. Furthermore, ERISA does not cover insurance policies that are purchased privately. It only covers those provided by an employer.
Under ERISA, those in charge of health plans and other benefits must provide information about the plan's funding and features, must abide by their fiduciary responsibilities and must provide an appeals process for people who have a grievance with their plans. Finally, ERISA gives participants the right to sue plan fiduciaries in cases where there is a breach of fiduciary duty.
Before a lawsuit can be filed, however, under ERISA the claimant must exhaust administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit. This means that if the insurance company has an internal appeals process, the claimant must file an appeal before filing a lawsuit, if the insurance policy in question is provided by the employer (private insurance, because it is not covered by ERISA, does not have such a requirement and a lawsuit can be filed once the first denial is received.)
Many insurance companies have rules for filing appeals, including a set time in which to file. Certain medical records and an appeal letter may also be required. If that appeal is then denied, a lawsuit can be filed to enforce the claimant's rights. A plan beneficiary or participant can file the lawsuit, depending on the circumstances, and the lawsuit is typically filed against the plan fiduciary or administrator.
It is important to note that under ERISA a claimant will not be awarded punitive damages; all that can be claimed are costs associated with the insurance policy.
Plaintiff Sues Exclusive Golf Club for Alleged California Labor Law Violations
The California labor lawsuit alleges discrimination against Angeles National. As reported in The Daily News of Los Angeles (7/11/12)) plaintiff Carly Cooter??"a former employee at the facility??"alleges that a customer of the facility walked up behind her where she was working, squeezed her breasts and simulated sex. The lawsuit claims the customer was likely in a drunken state on the day of the incident, which is alleged to have happened in 2006 or 2007.
Following a complaint by the plaintiff, a supervisor who was apparently required to handle the situation instead made mocking comments towards Cooter. The plaintiff's shifts were reduced, and she was subsequently fired. One report suggests Cooter's confidential summary of the alleged assault was posted in the facility's Pro Shop where it could be seen by customers and other employees.
Her lawsuit alleges various violations to the California labor code, including wrongful termination, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, a hostile work environment, sex discrimination, and breach of contract.
Another California labor lawsuit has been filed by a former employee of the facility who complained about a video camera mounted at the snack bar where she worked. The plaintiff in that action claims the camera broadcast footage of her posterior and those of other female employees working at the snack bar to various television monitors around the golf club. One report suggested the images revealed underwear. When the plaintiff complained, she was allegedly fired??"a violation of California employment labor law, if proven true.
The aforementioned lawsuit has yet to go to trial.
Defendant Angeles National, in a statement released through a public relations firm, called the accusations "ridiculous, salacious and unfounded.
"We trust the courts will recognize the cases for what they are," said Spokesperson Eric Rose, "an unconscionable and irresponsible abuse of the legal system by disgruntled former employees."
The California labor law trial is being conducted at Los Angeles Superior Court. The case is BC439058 Cooter v. Angeles National.
Golf Course Company Facing California Labor Lawsuit
Morton Golf - a co-defendant named in the lawsuit - provides management services for the city's four golf courses. At the heart of the lawsuit is the golf course known as Bing Maloney and the manager assigned to that course by Morton Golf, Andrew Wilson.
Wilson, identified as a former Marine and also named in the suit, has been accused of sexual harassment together with various other violations of California labor employment law, including affronts to regulations that govern meal breaks and payment of overtime.
The plaintiffs allege their meal and rest breaks - legislated by California and labor law??"were denied them. It is also alleged that employees working at the Bing Maloney course were instructed to clock out after eight hours, in spite of having additional work to perform, on some days, after they had punched out.
As for the sexual harassment allegations, one of the four plaintiffs described the work environment at the California golf course as "incredibly hostile." Allegations against Morton Golf and Wilson include lewd and inappropriate comments, and sexual touching. Two of the plaintiffs are female, while two are male. One of the male plaintiffs was dating a female plaintiff at the time, and was thus caught up in what was described in the lawsuit as sexual harassment on a daily basis.
The other male plaintiff alleged violations to California state labor laws.
Three of the plaintiffs no longer work for Morton Golf, while a fourth has moved from Bing Maloney to the pro shop at Bartley Cavanaugh, another of Sacramento's four golf courses. It is not clear if the plaintiff is still employed directly by Morton Golf, even though she is working at a city course managed by one of the two defendants. Pro shops often have different management and ownership structures.
The California employee labor lawsuit comes at a particularly sensitive time for Sacramento City governance. In May, Sacramento City Council voted to increase the city's stake in the management services of Morton Golf on the city's behalf, by contracting out course maintenance services to Morton as well. The move, as reported by The Bee, would save the City of Sacramento $500,000 per year - but would also result in the layoff of 38 unionized employees.
Was Worker's Death Due to Ignorance of California Labor Laws?
Margarita Mojica was 26 at the time of her death two years ago when she became entrapped in a box creasing and cutting machine. She was 17 weeks pregnant at the time with her second child.
California labor code, as with many federal statutes, dictates not only the requirement that an employer provide a safe work environment, but also that a worker has a right to protest if he or she feels at any time in danger while on the job.
It is not clear if the victim was even aware of the potential for disaster while simply doing her job.
According to the October 19th issue of the San Francisco Chronicle, the Oakland wife and mother of a young daughter was preparing a box creasing and cutting machine to start a job at the facility to replace a cutting die. According to prosecutors she was leaning into the machine when it suddenly activated and closed like a giant clamshell around her.
It is alleged that the owners of Digital Pre-Press International (DPI) of San Francisco were employing a previously owned cutting and creasing machine originally purchased in 2003. It has been reported that workers at some juncture asked to have a safety bar removed from the machine to allow for the handling of thicker cardboard. Investigators say the safety bar was not reinstalled.
While it is unclear if the accident would have been prevented had the safety bar been in place, there are a number of allegations that suggest workers at the facility were not properly schooled in safety protocols according to the tenets of California and labor law.
Regulators cited DPI on two previous occasions, in 1998 and again in 2001, for failing to maintain a worker safety program. The owner of DPI, Sanjay Sakhuja, is reported to have communicated to regulators that he had a training program in place by 2002; and an insurance inspection in 2007 found no problems with the machines at the facility.
However, following the tragic death of Mojica, state regulators under California labor employment law issued no fewer than 14 citations against DPI for not training workers properly. While the plant was reported to have a written safety program, workers told regulators they were never instructed on machine safety.
Sakhuja, along with pressroom manager Alick Yeung, have each been charged with manslaughter and willful violation of California state labor laws. A wrongful death civil suit has since been settled, according to The Chronicle. The value of the settlement was reported to be $6 million.
About . TOS . Privacy . Disclaimer . Contact . Advertise . Member Login
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License ©2026 Online Legal Media. All rights reserved.
Visit other Online Legal Media Websites:
