Metal Man Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Can someone point me to the part of the lawsuit where they were water-boarded until agreeing to sign it? I know this is pretty out there for some people, to each their own, but personally I make it a rule to read things before I sign them.
John in Jax Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Can someone point me to the part of the lawsuit where they were water-boarded until agreeing to sign it? I know this is pretty out there for some people, to each their own, but personally I make it a rule to read things before I sign them. I'm guessing that you also didn't bother to take a look at the actual lawsuit, but here are some very relevant parts of it: At all times herein alleged, defendants the Bills, Citadel, and Stejon required that, as a condition of employment, each and every Jill had to sign a written contract misclassifying the worker as an “independent contractor”. Contracts from prior years contained the same or substantially similar material terms. This “contract” is illegal, void and unenforceable because, inter alia, its terms are contrary to New York State’s public policy as set forth in Labor Law § 650 (the Minimum WageAct), it violates a statute imposing a penalty (Labor Law § 652), and its terms, particularly those relating to the amount of employee compensation, are too vague, indefinite and uncertain. At all times relevant, the Jills worked as Employees of defendants the Bills, Citadel,and Stejon, because the defendants exercised sufficient direction and control over the Jills including over the results and means of the work, to establish their status as employees. This is true despite the fact that the Jills were required to sign a “contract” misclassifying them as independent contractors. AND, there is case law on the books that backs up the above assertions (that these types of illegal "contracts" are null & void). The arguments back and forth in this thread would REALLY be more worthwhile if the people arguing would read the lawsuit, instead of just throwing up nonsensical opinions based on NO knowledge of what was going on. ;-)
YoloinOhio Posted April 24, 2014 Author Posted April 24, 2014 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. Very well could be - I didn't look at it very closely. In other news - there is a blogger who follows Buffalo pro cheerleaders?!
YoloinOhio Posted April 24, 2014 Author Posted April 24, 2014 Mike Rodak @mikerodak 9m Buffalo Jills cheerleaders suspend activities two days after lawsuit: http://es.pn/1nJgTtt
Metal Man Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Basically it is hard for me to get behind them when former Jills I know and all of their old teammates aren't on board even though they were subjected to the same treatment. Their basic opinion is that they knew the facts going in and ultimately had no complaints, also that these girls are just upset because they got cut from the team after a season or two. Then again women usually don't like each other so who knows. Obviously they have a case seeing other NFL cheerleading squads have won similar lawsuits, I just find it hard to find sympathy for situations like this. It will be interesting to see if these lawsuits end NFL cheerleaders for most teams all together.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Mike Rodak @mikerodak 9m Buffalo Jills cheerleaders suspend activities two days after lawsuit: http://es.pn/1nJgTtt Now let's see how long before anyone notices.
Mr. WEO Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 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. Yeah counselor, I think we all knew what you meant by slaves/slave labor--it's still ridiculous. Do I really have to explain to you that slaves don't get paid, unless you count "room and board", as it was. Did the Bills impose severe restrictions on the freedom of these women to, you know, get a real job? I bet most of them are already employed in legitimate business anyway. Cheerleading is a vanity job for them--a hobby someone pays them for. If the Bills (or the Jills actual employer) had paid them their minimum wage from the beginning would you be as outraged about the rest of these work restrictions that you have listed? Of course not. So why make a big deal about them now? They are part of the employment contract these people willingly and knowingly entered into. They are suing for better pay. If your legal and legit employer says you can't do car shows (or you have to do them in your Jills uni for min wage), you either quit the squad or you heed your contract of employment no matter how much the employer makes for the gig (which has no bearing here anyway).
Luxy312 Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 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. I'm not sure if either of these points have any relevance to the conversation. I currently work for a company that employs about 2,000 consultants and previously worked for one that employed 80,000. Every single person working for the company signs an agreement that says they will do no work of any kind for anyone else without prior written approval of the firm. Way more restrictive than the language here and legal in every state. Simply put in the context of this case, if you want a different job then get a different job. They have no obligation to work for the management company, nor do they have any right to do the same. At will employment anyone? In terms of getting no compensation for appearances, so what? Irrelevant. I make appearances all the time at trade shows, radio broadcasts, etc. relative to what I do for work and my company gets their name out there. I don't get extra compensation or a cut of what they may make on me. It is also part of my employment contract. There's nothing cut and dry about this at all, and as someone that is in the field of legal disputes, this one stinks a little bit of disgruntled former contractors seeking a payday.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 I'm not sure if either of these points have any relevance to the conversation. I currently work for a company that employs about 2,000 consultants and previously worked for one that employed 80,000. Every single person working for the company signs an agreement that says they will do no work of any kind for anyone else without prior written approval of the firm. Way more restrictive than the language here and legal in every state. Simply put in the context of this case, if you want a different job then get a different job. They have no obligation to work for the management company, nor do they have any right to do the same. At will employment anyone? In terms of getting no compensation for appearances, so what? Irrelevant. I make appearances all the time at trade shows, radio broadcasts, etc. relative to what I do for work and my company gets their name out there. I don't get extra compensation or a cut of what they may make on me. It is also part of my employment contract. There's nothing cut and dry about this at all, and as someone that is in the field of legal disputes, this one stinks a little bit of disgruntled former contractors seeking a payday. Another classic case of "me too" handout seekers. One of the tenures was three years. So it was so degrading and unfairly compensated they came back again and again. Poor helpless exploited children.... Make you wonder why anyone even wants to run a business anymore.
Tsaikotic Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 I guess I'm not understanding how the Bills have anything to do with this...yes i know its their name, colors and image being used but from what I've read/heard Mr.Wilson wanted nothing to do with the Jills and I'm assuming he put no money towards them.. i could be totally wrong but that's my assumption....I can't say the same is for the other NFL teams being sued tho...I can only assume they named the Bills in the lawsuit to co-inside with the other lawsuits to be uniform...personally I can do without the Jills and see them as not needed..tho it is nice for high-school cheerleaders to know they can pursue cheer-leading after school is over, in their spare time that is..kinda like me playing backyard football because I like playing the sport...but I don't get paid for it
Luxy312 Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Why haven't future Jills sued? I wondered that too. Like the ones that haven't even been born yet. LOL.
ALF Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Pay the young ladies a fair wage, they are well worth it.
John in Jax Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 I guess I'm not understanding how the Bills have anything to do with this...yes i know its their name, colors and image being used but from what I've read/heard Go read the lawsuit (linked at Deadspin). The Bills were a "de facto" employer since the Bills had plenty of control over just about everything the Jills said & did. I'm not sure if either of these points have any relevance to the conversation. I currently work for a company that employs about 2,000 consultants and previously worked for one that employed 80,000. Every single person working for the company signs an agreement that says they will do no work of any kind for anyone else without prior written approval of the firm. Way more restrictive than the language here and legal in every state. Simply put in the context of this case, if you want a different job then get a different job. They have no obligation to work for the management company, nor do they have any right to do the same. At will employment anyone? Apples & Oranges. You must be missing the loads of posts that are saying this is just "a hobby" or just a "side job", where the girls were just using the position to get publicity to further their careers. In YOUR example above, I assume everyone is a "real" employee, with a real defined salary & real defined benefits, right? In this case, the Bills are trying to severely limit (no outside modeling work even OUT of the Jills uni) these girls from earning a living, even though the Jills gig is at such a low pay it's laughable & pathetic.
BobbyC81 Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Mike Rodak @mikerodak 9m Buffalo Jills cheerleaders suspend activities two days after lawsuit: http://es.pn/1nJgTtt The cheerleading nazi has spoken: "No cheerleaders for you!!"
stevestojan Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Pay the young ladies a fair wage, they are well worth it. How are they worth anything? That's an honest question. What, at all, do they bring to the game experience? And if you want to talk about the events they go to, allot of people that. It's called volunteering.
Chandler#81 Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 How are they worth anything? That's an honest question. What, at all, do they bring to the game experience? And if you want to talk about the events they go to, allot of people that. It's called volunteering. So it IS you who's professional moniker is Stejon -proprietor of the Jill's! I thought so! You Bastard! Ha!
Clippers of Nfl Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 In terms of getting no compensation for appearances, so what? Irrelevant. I make appearances all the time at trade shows, radio broadcasts, etc. relative to what I do for work and my company gets their name out there. I don't get extra compensation or a cut of what they may make on me. It is also part of my employment contract. There's nothing cut and dry about this at all, and as someone that is in the field of legal disputes, this one stinks a little bit of disgruntled former contractors seeking a payday. I like how you like to be abused. That's not cool in California. My company has rented booths for many events. Concerts and sporting events. "Here is your ticket to the game chump" is not good compensation. You must get the hours you work, mileage, and food. Entrance to the event is just a bonus. I work for a fortune 100 company so I guess they get it right.
Recommended Posts