Former Jills suing the Bills

[Campy]

That the girls accepted the work, or "knew what they were getting into" is irrelevant because it is pretty obvious the employer violated state and federal employment and tax law.

 

If they had done the right thing up front, this wouldn't be an issue.

[Clippers of Nfl]

I like seeing a pretty face once in a while and it's part of the game. Suck it up. Keep them and pay them big!!!!

 

I hope they win some monster case!!!!

I honestly thought they probably got a grand per game. 50 bucks a game is bs.

50 bucks a game is a good price for most bills players.

[Luxy312]

That the girls accepted the work, or "knew what they were getting into" is irrelevant because it is pretty obvious the employer violated state and federal employment and tax law.

 

If they had done the right thing up front, this wouldn't be an issue.

 

It's not obvious at all or they wouldn't be going to court, and the "right thing" is purely subjective.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Not so fast. I don't know your daughters, but, as I said above, cheerleading is a means to an end for many. If your daughters have the potential to be biochemists working for a pharma company, then yeah, I don't want them to be Buffalo Jills either. Waste of talent. But what if they don't have that ability? Are they just supposed to get married/die/work as servers/go on welfare/live the life of Julia?

 

Can we not come down on the girls who can't be biochemists, do have other talents, and use those other talents effectively to form a career? I don't think they deserve to be disrespected so easily.

 

Hey, I saw what you did there. I resemble those remarks!

 

OC, I do think that's a bit of a false dichotomy, though. There are plenty of other jobs that pay reasonably and don't require special intellect. It just isn't a choice between being in a technical field or being a waitress/welfare recipient. Neither, as far as I know, is it required to start out as a cheerleader in order to enter PR or trade show work, as far as I know. I'm not even sure it's a particular entree into that work - I'd have to ask around some of the folks I know who are involved with trade shows.

 

I'm not sure who is disrespecting the Jills or the trade show ladies. The fundamental point, IMO, is whether it's OK for a business to behave as an employer, but fail to comply with employment law (minimum wage), because the terms are disclosed to the employee up front and the employee freely enters into that agreement?

 

I think it's a slippery slope and the "supply and demand" thing doesn't hold water. Is it OK to not pay a grocery store clerk or a Walmart cleaner minimum wage because there's a constant supply of new people willing to work under any conditions for any pay, just to be earning something? Is it OK to fire all the older engineers and replace them with cheaper young graduates because there's a constant supply? In the end, like it or don't, it's a civic right to sue and the courts will decide, but I don't think it's frivolous, and I do think there are a bunch of folks here sniping at that right who are likely benefiting strongly themselves from current employment law and legal precedents.

 

By the way, the strippers I know make durn good money-probably better than trade show ladies although like the NFL, "not for long". And there's at least one internationally famous scientist who is well-known on the QT for his propensity to pinch the butt of any female (scientist or not) who places her posterior within maneuvering reach of his arm.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Hopeful

[YoloinOhio]

Statement from current Jills:

 

BuffaloProCheerBlog ‏@buffaloprocheer 17m

The only time we'll address it, our official stance on the Jills lawsuit... http://fb.me/3uafqfLNH

Edited April 23, 2014 by YoloinOhio

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Statement from current Jills:

 

BuffaloProCheerBlog ‏@buffaloprocheer 17m

The only time we'll address it, our official stance on the Jills lawsuit... http://fb.me/3uafqfLNH

 

Thanks for the link. Very sane and reasonable viewpoint.

 

It seems to be the "official stance" of an independent blogger who follows B'lo pro-cheerleaders, not an official statement from current Jills.

Apologies if mistaken.

[PastaJoe]

Jills story was just on ABC News national broadcast.

[The Voice of Truth]

This story was just covered for a few minutes on ABC World News with Diane Sawyer.

[I_want_2_BILL_Lieve]

According to ABC News, "they had to pay out of pocket for their $650 uniform." Honestly, does that look like a $650 uniform?

[OCinBuffalo]

Hey, I saw what you did there. I resemble those remarks!

Well, if you know this handle, then you know that the lulz are taken whenever they are available, that I will grind whatever grist the mill requires to get them.

OC, I do think that's a bit of a false dichotomy, though. There are plenty of other jobs that pay reasonably and don't require special intellect. It just isn't a choice between being in a technical field or being a waitress/welfare recipient. Neither, as far as I know, is it required to start out as a cheerleader in order to enter PR or trade show work, as far as I know. I'm not even sure it's a particular entree into that work - I'd have to ask around some of the folks I know who are involved with trade shows.

The extreme was used to illustrate the point. Of course there are literally 10000+ jobs between chemist, or CEO of startup IT...thingy(now there's a job that should be disrespected)...and road whore.

 

So what, not every girl is gonna be a model, and not every girl who could be a model is one. But, most of the girls who can be, are, because of the $, and it's the best job compared to the alternatives available.

 

Most of the people I know who are involved were cheerleaders. It is required? No. What is required is the ability to speak about a product intelligently. Like anything else, that takes practice for most people, not for all. A few can do it out of the box. The point is, the practice that you get as a cheerleader is conducive to product support jobs, and it appears to be, since so many are ex-cheerleaders. I don't do this at all: I've just been around it my whole career.

I'm not sure who is disrespecting the Jills or the trade show ladies. The fundamental point, IMO, is whether it's OK for a business to behave as an employer, but fail to comply with employment law (minimum wage), because the terms are disclosed to the employee up front and the employee freely enters into that agreement?

Horsecrap. Not every business works the same, and certainly some businesses, especially those that require rare talent, work the way they do for very good reason. Often it is because there aren't that many people in the business who are willing to teach it, while getting their own work done. Example: I have had interns since I'm 25. Often they've worked for nothing, largely because I had nothing to pay myself, never mind them, or just, albeit stupid, company policy. I make no promises other than I will teach, and they will learn.

 

I treat them like employees, because they are going to be: employees. I couldn't care less whose panties that bunches. They didn't make the promise to teach. I did. They aren't going to stay after work until the kid gets it. I have. My relationship with my "students" is our business, not theirs.

 

Interns, just like cheerleaders, ARE being paid: hopefully by somebody who takes it seriously, and pays them with the knowledge and experience, they require to be successful.

I think it's a slippery slope and the "supply and demand" thing doesn't hold water.

Yeah, well I know it's an idiot slope we're on, when we're told supply/demand doesn't apply. Look at the issues of the day. Notice anything? Yes, we're all currently skiing down Mt. Retard. We might want to consider recognizing where denial of supply/demand is taking us.

Is it OK to not pay a grocery store clerk or a Walmart cleaner minimum wage because there's a constant supply of new people willing to work under any conditions for any pay, just to be earning something? Is it OK to fire all the older engineers and replace them with cheaper young graduates because there's a constant supply? In the end, like it or don't, it's a civic right to sue and the courts will decide, but I don't think it's frivolous, and I do think there are a bunch of folks here sniping at that right who are likely benefiting strongly themselves from current employment law and legal precedents.

It comes down to: what did you know and when did you know it. If you knew, and you still sue? You're a D-bag, and so is your lawyer. Period. If you didn't know, or there are mitigating circumstances, or other people are benefiting from your work without your consent/paying you? Yeah, none of that is frivolous.

 

Nothing was stopping cheerleaders from collective bargaining. Now, they don't have a right to retroactively sue, as they took the $ they were offered. If they took the $ as it was offered, that's them consenting to the deal. I don't see where they have a leg to stand on, but, I'm sure you can find a D-bag lawyer that does...for a fee. You really think the angle here isn't "let's get this into the media, and force a settlement, because the bad PR is 3x more damaging than the settlement $"? You really think that the lawyer here isn't counting on that as the source of his fee, and instead, is counting on these cheerleaders to pay him out-of-pocket?

 

The rest is emoting. The law is about equity, not emoting. The above IS the angle. It'll be telling to see the response to it, as then we will know how the Bills, and the NFL, sees themselves. Are they too big/bad to care? Do they place any real value on this type of bad PR, or, is the Draft gonna wash this out?

 

Curious: why now for the lawsuit? Could it be because this is down time for the NFL, but not quite, because the draft is coming, and this is a "spoiler"? Smart lawyer, but we'll see if he's as smart as he thinks he is.

By the way, the strippers I know make durn good money-probably better than trade show ladies although like the NFL, "not for long". And there's at least one internationally famous scientist who is well-known on the QT for his propensity to pinch the butt of any female (scientist or not) who places her posterior within maneuvering reach of his arm.

So what? Trade show ladies have a career path. Or at least most of them. Strippers have at best: porn to look forward to, and then? Something dark, I'd guess.

 

Yes, well there's all sorts of dogs, all sorts of places. However, besides being morally wrong, I see that as weakness. It takes strength to get play the right way: from a woman you don't know, in the bar, through the wall her 3 friends try, and FAIL, to deploy, and past the various...um...blockers. To me, that's a task worth doing, because the losing makes the winning. The other is disgusting weakness, and I detest it.

 

Btw, you may be surprised just how many women in positions of power "take advantage". It's a problem that gets 0 air time, and that's why it's a growing problem.

Edited April 23, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[Chandler#81]

According to ABC News, "they had to pay out of pocket for their $650 uniform." Honestly, does that look like a $650 uniform?

 

I'll pay $650 to see them burned. They're the ugliest outfits in the League -year after year!

[John in Jax]

Just read the whole lawsuit (linked at Deadspin), and WOW! I had no idea that these cheerleaders are basically treated like slaves. It appears to be a slam dunk case for the ex-Jills, and it is rather appalling and disgusting how they (Jill cheerleaders) were/are treated.

 

One thing that really surprises me is that there are not more....many more....ex-Jills joining in on this lawsuit, and turning it into a class-action suit. Also, the amount of money raked in by the two Jills' managing companies.....with NO money going to the Jills.....for all those non-game appearances/activities, is outrageous, and should be criminal.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

I like seeing a pretty face once in a while and it's part of the game. Suck it up. Keep them and pay them big!!!!

 

I hope they win some monster case!!!!

I honestly thought they probably got a grand per game. 50 bucks a game is bs.

50 bucks a game is a good price for most bills players.

 

A grand per game sounds fair. They can just raise the ticket ticket price $1 a piece. Call it the cheerleader fee. Problem solved.

 

I still am fine shutting it down completely or partnering with high schools or local colleges..... Pro cheerleaders??? I mean really.... Who give a rats arse about Pom poms and hairspray at a pro sporting event?

[Big Turk]

To get lucky and marry a player is what I thought they signed up for.

 

No,no...to get lucky and get knocked up by a player so they can cash that child support check for 18 years is more like it...

[John in Jax]

To get lucky and marry a player is what I thought they signed up for.

 

Actually, according to their written "Rules Handbook", fraternizing with the players is NOT allowed, and if they do it, they will be punished/fined/beaten/benched.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Pay em, they're working the their butts off (literally) and deserve to be compensated.

[Mr. WEO]

Just read the whole lawsuit (linked at Deadspin), and WOW! I had no idea that these cheerleaders are basically treated like slaves.

 

There you go. This topic has officially reached absurdity. Amazing it took over 100 posts for someone to equate professional cheerleading to slavery.

[KD in CA]

There you go. This topic has officially reached absurdity. Amazing it took over 100 posts for someone to equate professional cheerleading to slavery.

 

Someone needs to make a movie. 12 Years a Cheerleader.

[John in Jax]

There you go. This topic has officially reached absurdity. Amazing it took over 100 posts for someone to equate professional cheerleading to slavery.

 

Obviously, it was meant in the vein of slave labor, but I guess what's obvious to most is not so obvious to some.

 

Btw, did you even read through the lawsuit? Here's a few nuggets which are quite outrageous:

 

The defendants imposed severe restrictions on the Jills’ freedom to engage in other work. For example, for the term of their contract with defendants, the Jills were prohibited from participating “in any other capacity or employment in promotions, advertising, modeling or photography, with other than the Buffalo Jills, Stejon Productions and/or its official photographer, without first having obtained the written or verbal consent of the Director.” The Jills’ Handbook also prohibited the Jills from taking part in contests and/or fashion shows, media events, commercials or advertisements, in or out of uniform.

 

Most of the mandatory Jills’ appearances were designated as “sponsor appearances,” which were a benefit offered as part of sponsorship packages sold by defendants, Buffalo Bills, Stejon, and formerly Citadel, to outside vendors. Defendants had at least eleven named sponsors in 2013. Upon information and belief, Stejon collected a minimum of $10,000 for each sponsorship that it sells. The Jills cheerleaders received no compensation from defendants for sponsor appearances.

[LB3]

 

 

Obviously, it was meant in the vein of slave labor, but I guess what's obvious to most is not so obvious to some.

 

Btw, did you even read through the lawsuit? Here's a few nuggets which are quite outrageous:

 

The defendants imposed severe restrictions on the Jills’ freedom to engage in other work. For example, for the term of their contract with defendants, the Jills were prohibited from participating “in any other capacity or employment in promotions, advertising, modeling or photography, with other than the Buffalo Jills, Stejon Productions and/or its official photographer, without first having obtained the written or verbal consent of the Director.” The Jills’ Handbook also prohibited the Jills from taking part in contests and/or fashion shows, media events, commercials or advertisements, in or out of uniform.

 

Most of the mandatory Jills’ appearances were designated as “sponsor appearances,” which were a benefit offered as part of sponsorship packages sold by defendants, Buffalo Bills, Stejon, and formerly Citadel, to outside vendors. Defendants had at least eleven named sponsors in 2013. Upon information and belief, Stejon collected a minimum of $10,000 for each sponsorship that it sells. The Jills cheerleaders received no compensation from defendants for sponsor appearances.

 

Sounds awful. I wonder who the evil mastermind is that FORCED these helpless victims to be cheerleaders. They should be sued too.