CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Exotic Island Enterprises

This case involves appeals by Exotic Island Enterprises and Sliffer Enterprises, Inc., corporations owned by Keith Slifstein, against decisions from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Department of Labor had initially determined that exotic dancers performing at their venues, Fantasy Island Gent Club and Pleasure Island II, were employees, leading to assessments for additional unemployment insurance contributions. An Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, in turn, affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence that the corporations exercised sufficient direction and control over the dancers to establish an employment relationship. Factors included Slifstein's involvement in dancer selection, scheduling, pricing for private dances, retention of a percentage of earnings, and provision of performance infrastructure. The court also noted the corporations' failure to provide remuneration documentation, allowing the Department to assess contributions based on available information.

Unemployment Insurance AppealExotic Dancers Employee StatusEmployer ControlUnemployment Insurance ContributionsAdministrative Law Judge DecisionWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor Law ComplianceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBusiness Operations
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephen S. Durish, Permanent Ancillary Receiver for Transit Casualty Company v. Mayo Dancer

Mayo Dancer suffered injuries while employed by Texas Electric Service Company, receiving workers' compensation benefits from TEIA. He sued Intercounty Concrete, Inc., whose insurer (Transit Casualty Company) became insolvent, leading to Durish acting as receiver. Dancer sought recovery from the Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund. The trial court awarded Dancer $165,750, with $100,000 from the Guaranty Fund and the remainder from Intercounty’s receivership estate. Durish appealed, disputing Dancer's compliance with the 'exhaustion of recovery' requirement, the method of calculating the 'nonduplication of recovery' offset, and the award of post-judgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on all points, concluding that Dancer had exhausted other remedies, the offset was correctly applied against the total judgment before the statutory limit, and post-judgment interest was permissible under Texas law.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Guaranty ActSubrogationInsolvencyPost-judgment InterestExhaustion of RecoveryNonduplication of RecoveryTexas LawAppellate ReviewDamages
References
5
Case No. 09 Civ. 3043(PAE)
Regular Panel Decision

Hart v. Rick's Cabaret International, Inc.

This Opinion & Order addresses several pre-trial issues in a class action lawsuit brought by exotic dancers against Rick’s Cabaret NY and related entities, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law concerning minimum wages and mandatory tip-out fees. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer ruled that performance fees received by dancers cannot offset the Club’s liability for mandatory tip-out fees, which were deemed unlawful deductions under NYLL § 193(3)(a). The Court further affirmed that claims related to these tip-out fees are appropriate for class-wide resolution, consistent with the Mt. Clemens doctrine for calculating damages when employer records are insufficient. Finally, the defendants' motion for interlocutory appeal regarding class certification, the "reasonable customer" standard, and wage offset issues was denied, as the questions did not meet the criteria of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Consequently, a single trial is scheduled for April 27, 2015, to resolve all outstanding jury issues.

Class ActionFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawMinimum WageTip-out FeesExotic DancersInterlocutory AppealClass CertificationDamages CalculationEmployer Liability
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2010

Fowler v. SCORES HOLDING COMPANY, INC.

Plaintiff Ruth Fowler, an exotic dancer, sued Scores Holding Company, Inc., alleging sex discrimination, a hostile work environment, and unlawful wage deductions at Scores West, invoking the New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York Labor Law. Scores Holding moved to dismiss, arguing Fowler was an independent contractor and not its employee. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that Fowler sufficiently alleged an employee relationship and that Scores Holding could be considered her employer under the single and joint employer doctrines. The court concluded that Fowler's claims for discrimination, hostile work environment, and unlawful wage deductions were facially plausible under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8.

Sex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentWage DeductionsIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationJoint EmployerMotion to DismissFederal Civil ProcedureHuman Rights LawLabor Law
References
44
Case No. 14 Civ. 10120
Regular Panel Decision

Guzman v. Three Amigos SJL Inc.

Plaintiffs, exotic dancers, filed a collective action lawsuit against their former employers, operators of Cheetahs Gentlemen’s Club, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. The plaintiffs claim they were denied hourly wages, subjected to unlawful tip-sharing practices, had a portion of their tips retained by employers, were required to pay "house fees" per shift, and were not reimbursed for mandatory uniform expenses. They sought conditional approval for a collective action, arguing that all entertainers at Cheetahs were subject to the same illegal compensation policies. The court granted the motion for conditional certification, finding that the plaintiffs made a modest factual showing of common unlawful practices, rejecting the defendants' arguments as premature attacks on the merits. The court, however, denied the request for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations.

FLSANew York Labor LawWage and HourCollective ActionConditional CertificationEquitable TollingExotic DancersUnpaid WagesTip-SharingEmployment Litigation
References
59
Case No. 09 Civ. 3043(PAE)
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2014

Hart v. Rick's NY Cabaret International, Inc.

This Opinion & Order addresses the court's jurisdiction over New York Labor Law (NYLL) claims in a class action lawsuit filed by exotic dancers against Rick's Cabaret and related entities. The plaintiffs initially brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and NYLL. While the court considered exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the NYLL claims, plaintiffs argued for independent diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The court concluded that, based on the current record, it possesses independent jurisdiction under CAFA for the NYLL claims. Furthermore, the court found that the defendants failed to establish any of the statutory exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction, including the 'local controversy,' 'home state,' or 'interest of justice' exceptions. The court left open the possibility for a renewed motion to remand the NYLL claims if later-developed facts challenge CAFA jurisdiction.

FLSA ClaimsNYLL ClaimsCAFA JurisdictionClass ActionSupplemental JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionEmployment LawExotic DancersMinimum WageWage & Hour
References
21
Case No. NO. 2-07-150-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2008

I Gotcha, Inc., D/B/A Illusions v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission

I Gotcha, Inc., operating as Illusions, appealed a trial court's judgment that upheld a $13,500 civil penalty imposed by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC). The penalty resulted from a TABC investigation where a dancer at Illusions allegedly solicited TABC agents for sexual purposes. Illusions contended that the dancer was an independent contractor, not an employee, and that a single incident was insufficient to justify a 'place or manner' violation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the administrative law judge's conclusions that the dancer was an employee and that the solicitation occurred. The court also upheld the finding of a 'place or manner' violation, citing the current incident and Illusions's prior Code violations, and found no abuse of discretion in the penalty assessment.

Alcoholic Beverage Code ViolationsCivil PenaltyAdministrative ReviewSubstantial Evidence RuleEmployee vs. Independent ContractorSolicitation for Immoral PurposesPublic DecencyPermit SuspensionAbuse of DiscretionTexas Court of Appeals
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2014

People v. Hares

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Cayuga County Court, rendered on June 12, 2014, convicting her of fraudulent practices, welfare fraud, and misuse of food stamps following a guilty plea. The judgment included an order of forfeiture of her right to future workers' compensation benefits due to an existing back injury. The defendant sought to vacate this forfeiture as a matter of discretion. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the judgment, noting that the forfeiture was a voluntary part of the plea agreement, the defendant had a prior conviction for welfare fraud, and she had earned unreported income as a cage dancer despite her alleged disability.

Welfare FraudFraudulent PracticesMisuse of Food StampsGuilty PleaRestitutionForfeiture OrderWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate ReviewPlea AgreementCriminal Appeal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2008

Roddy v. Nederlander Producing Co. of America

A plaintiff dancer sought damages for personal injuries against his employer and theater owners after falling on a slippery stage. The employer was previously dismissed under Workers' Compensation Law. The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed an order denying the plaintiff's motion for renewal and reargument, thereby adhering to a prior decision to dismiss the complaint against the theater owners. The court held that the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to contest the theater owners' negligence in a prior related appeal (Roddy I) but failed to participate. Furthermore, the plaintiff's belated introduction of an expert theory regarding the air conditioning system was rejected as untimely and speculative, lacking empirical support.

Premises LiabilityPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewRes JudicataLaw of the CaseCollateral EstoppelIndemnificationSummary JudgmentExpert WitnessProcedural Issues
References
13
Case No. MDL No. 1038
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2002

In Re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability Litigation

This multidistrict products liability action involved thousands of plaintiffs alleging injuries from the Norplant contraceptive device against American Home Products Corporation and its subsidiaries. The court considered two motions for partial summary judgment. The first, concerning the 'learned intermediary doctrine' and 26 primary side effects, was granted in part and denied for 10 plaintiffs whose cases were governed by New Jersey law due to an advertising exception. The second motion, addressing over 950 'exotic conditions' for which no causation evidence was presented, was granted against all plaintiffs. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment against 2,960 plaintiffs, effectively concluding the MDL proceedings for the majority of the non-settling cases.

Products LiabilityNorplantContraceptive DeviceLearned Intermediary DoctrineCausationSummary JudgmentMultidistrict LitigationFailure to WarnPharmaceuticalsTexas Law
References
61
Showing 1-10 of 13 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational