




"Fake tits are like Kevlar. They don't guarantee your chances of survival but they sure as hell improve it."
Tempest





^^^ This class action lawsuit would appear to be 'more of the same' ... with one huge exception. That huge exception, of course, is that in filing her lawsuit, dancer Brianna Frank has officially raised the issue that Platinum Plus allegedly hired her as a dancer at age 17 based on her use of a fake ID. This 'jumps the shark' in regard to mere state labor laws and local courts, and lands directly in federal court i.e. the pool of federal 'sexploitation' and 'legal work status' laws.
Not wanting to speculate unnecessarily, but this lawsuit could very well create 'fallout' which could easily affect other clubs across the 'Atlantic' Federal court circuit covering PA, NJ, DE, and MD in regard to clubs being required to collect and VERIFY personal information on all dancers - including such things as real name, age, address, social security number, citizenship / 'green card' status, etc. If a legal precedent is established on appeal, this could potentially expand nationwide.
Undoubtedly dancer Brianna Frank will receive a huge settlement offer. However, as a federal court case potentially involving felony charge accusations being made against the club, the federal court judge may not allow a simple settlement to make this case 'disappear'.
Last edited by Melonie; 03-29-2015 at 06:01 AM.
wait so this broad isn't going to be punished for using a fake id?
I know the club should have verified her id was real but still using a fake id is a crime right?
Plus they tell you upfront you are an independent contractor and you pay fees to rent the stage each night you work. If she didn't want to pay fees then why the hell did she come back to work night after night for 2 years??? Then left for a year and came back to work at the same place??? Makes no sense.
The club really fucked up though hiring a 17 year old minor though because they can't consent on legal contracts which is what the clubs make you sign - informing you of fees, disclaimers, and what not.
“Cook for him like a housewife, fuck him good like a nympho….pay the rent and the car note, he invests in me like crypto”





It would only become a de-facto crime if A. the charges can be factually proven ( i.e. the club would have to have kept a copy of the fake ID she originally used ), B. some prosecutor / judge decided to actually pursue charges, and C. the statute of limitations allowed such charges to still be brought after ~3 years had passed. And even if 'fake ID' charges were brought successfully, under most circumstances the charge would be a misdemeanor ( she reportedly used another person's ID which the club accepted, versus an illegally modified version of her own ID ), thus resulting in a comparatively small fine plus probation.I know the club should have verified her id was real but still using a fake id is a crime right?
Maybe I'm overly suspicious, but this 'smells' like a well laid plan was in place by the dancer and her attorney well prior to the lawsuit actually being filed.
As is the case with all 'employee' dancer lawsuits, the determination of independent contractor status versus 'employee' status actually relies on a set of DOL 'tests' regarding how the club treated the dancer. Did the club enforce a schedule ? Did the club enforce a 'dress code' ? Did the club enforce fixed prices for private dances / VIP / CR ? If enough of these DOL 'tests' show the club was exercising an 'employer' level of control over the dancer, then **poof** the DOL / judge decrees that the dancer has 'employee' status no matter what the club may have told dancers ( or included in the club's contract ) at the time the dancer was hired.they tell you upfront you are an independent contractor and you pay fees to rent the stage each night you work
Also, while the 'employee' status argument may have been the basis for filing this lawsuit in the first place ... based on the precedent of a number of similar lawsuits ... it may not be the real 'money' issue in this particular case. As stated above, a corporate club having hired an under-aged dancer opens a Pandora's Box of far more serious potential repurcussions than the club being required to pay out a few thousand dollars in $2.95 an hour minimum wage dancer pay !!! If the case is allowed to go to trial in federal court, as a matter of public record, the club chain's name is likely to be linked by national news reports to such keywords as 'sexploitation', 'under-aged sex', you name it !!!
What is it likely to be worth to the club chain to 'buy off' such a lawsuit via offering the dancer a huge cash settlement in exchange for dropping the suit ... and thus avoid such negative publicity ? I'd guess six figures, easy !!! So far, the only publicity has been a local news story ... where the local reporter chose to emphasize the 'employee' status aspect and downplay the 'under-aged sexploitation' aspect. It is doubtful that national media would choose the same emphasis ( or lack thereof ), especially during 'sweeps week', if this case winds up on the federal court docket ! This is something which the corporate chain club's attorneys understand very well !!!
Again, the possible 'new wrinkle' in this case is that a federal judge isn't necessarily obligated to allow the case to be disposed of via out-of-court settlement due to the inclusion of under-aged sex industry aspects. This could result in an in-depth court examination of dancer hiring practices, dancer ID age ( and SS# / legal work status ) verification procedures, etc. ... with potential future effects on lots of other clubowners and dancers.
Last edited by Melonie; 04-02-2015 at 03:36 AM. Reason: '
I have very mixed feelings about SOME of these suits. On the one hand I don't want to see dancers exploited. On the other hand many dancers at many of these clubs make plenty of money. I'd like to be exploited the way SOME of these dancers are. Brianna Frank put up with this horrible , terrible exploitative situation for NINE months. Not nine days ; not nine weeks but nine months ! Why so long ? Why didn't she just walk out ? There had to be a reason she stayed there so long and it was probably because she was making money. Afaik none of the plaintiffs in these suits are "Queens" i.e. gals who have no trouble making lots and lots of money in these clubs. Few are successful hustlers who know how to play the game and do very well. It seems to me that most of them are wallflowers who sit on their ass all night and then complain that they didn't make as much money as some of the other gals.
As far as the fake I.D. issue that depends on the state. Some are tougher than others on the employer.
One of her claims is ludicrous : That the touching inside the club caused her to " lose standing in the community ". What community is she talking about ? Dancers inside the club ? Dancers in general ? The community as a whole ? Again, if there was ( God help us ! ) contact inside the club and she didn't like it then why didn't she just leave ? What ? - she stuck it out so she could build up her damages and later go : " Ka ching , ka ching , ka ching ? "
Last edited by Eric Stoner; 04-02-2015 at 09:57 AM.





^ I completly agree Eric! My gf and I ( top earners) were just saying the other day...The only who would get involved in these suits are the ones who shouldn't be dancing in the first place. Nothing is changing from these suits. Their just money makers for the lawyers. I'll never forget when I was working at ricks, nola and I told a girl who was complaining she wasn't making any money to go to hustler. Well she couldn't because she was involved in the suit and got a whole 500. Lmfao. Glad I'll be out of the industry before these girls ruin it!





Unfortunately, sometimes this is not the case. Dancers who continue to work at clubs who have been found to be running 'employer' / 'employee' operations are certainly affected. As 'employee' dancers, they become subject to tax withholding, W2 reporting, etc.Nothing is changing from these suits.
My fear in regard to the 'fake ID' aspect is that lots of clubs might be forced to start verifying dancer SS#'s and ID's ... which in turn could lead to online private databases used by prospective 'straight' job employers adding records that a girl with name XYZ SS# 123 was e-verified to work at strip club ABC.
I thought the clubs do in fact verify age using ss off the id or do clubs have discretion when to verify id?....Like I thought the reputable ones want to make sure no minors get in or lawsuits of sex trafficking minors or felony type sex crimes. But that theres no link unless the database employers can access and link identity happens with clubs that issue 1099's??
Last edited by miss.a.p1600; 04-04-2015 at 11:48 PM.
“Cook for him like a housewife, fuck him good like a nympho….pay the rent and the car note, he invests in me like crypto”










^^^ agreed that nothing changes for the better ... other than a handful of ex-dancers receiving a few dollars in settlement money or 'back' minimum wage pay.
The degree of verification I'm worried about is the potential mandated use of a gov't approved private database service like E-Verify. See . Not only does E-Verify provide a cross-check of social security records for age verification, it also checks for legal work status, criminal record, and a host of other info. This could be the direct result of the judge's decision should the above case actually go to trial, or it could come as a company directive from corporate chain club attorneys who wish to prevent any possible recurrence of this under-aged dancer incident.I thought the clubs do in fact verify age using ss off the id or do clubs have discretion when to verify id?....Like I thought the reputable ones want to make sure no minors get in or lawsuits of sex trafficking minors. But that theres no link unless the database employers can access and link identity happens with clubs that issue 1099's??
At the moment, legally speaking, all that is required of a club to allow an independent contractor dancer to work is to require a would-be dancer to show a gov't issued ID of some sort ( typically a driver's license ) showing date of birth. A would-be dancer presenting fake ID can easily circumvent this in the absence of verification against official 'gov't' records i.e. E-Verify or a similar service.
Silly Hoes have to mess it up for everyone. *sigh*
“Cook for him like a housewife, fuck him good like a nympho….pay the rent and the car note, he invests in me like crypto”










^^^ Yup, the Ricks 'employee dancer' lawsuit has been working its way through the courts for years. Since Ricks is a publicly held corporation, if the court rules for a sizeable payout ( or Ricks offers a sizeable settlement ), many 'high profile' investors will lose a lot of money. This bodes badly for the future of 'corporate' strip clubs, since it will publicize the 'black swan' financial risks involved in the strip club business model. This will make it significantly more difficult for strip club owners to obtain investor / venture capital financing in the future, thus making the opening of new strip clubs much more difficult.
However, the Ricks lawsuit is confined to 'employee' dancer issues, such as the payment of ( tipped ) minimum wage, the collection of 'house fees', the imposition of strict shift scheduling etc. It does NOT include the 'new' question of a club hiring under-aged dancers, as Ms. Frank's lawsuit does.










the most recent 8K issued by Ricks is probably the most relevant ...
(snip)ITEM 8.01 OTHER EVENTS
On April 1, 2015, we and our subsidiaries, RCI Entertainment (New York), Inc. and Peregrine Enterprises, Inc., entered into an agreement to settle in full a New York based federal wage and hour class action case filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The settlement has been filed with the court for preliminary approval. Trial was scheduled to begin April 27, 2015. Under terms of the agreement, RCI Entertainment (New York), Inc. and Peregrine Enterprises, Inc. will make up to $15 million available to class members and their attorneys. The actual amount paid will be determined based on the number of class members responding by the end of a three-month notice period, with final court approval expected some time after that. Any unclaimed checks or payments will revert back to our subsidiaries. Based on the current schedule, an initial payment will be made in approximately five months, with two subsequent payments of $1,833,333 each being made in equal annual installments. As part of the settlement, we were required to guarantee the obligations of RCI Entertainment (New York), Inc. and Peregrine Enterprises, Inc. under the settlement.
Filed in 2009, the case claimed Rick’s Cabaret New York misclassified entertainers as independent contractors. Plaintiffs sought minimum wage for the hours they danced and return of certain fees. RCI Entertainment (New York), Inc. and Peregrine Enterprises, Inc. maintained the dancers were properly classified, and alternatively, amounts earned were well in excess of the minimum wage and should satisfy any obligations.(snip)
It should be pointed out that the payout of $1,833,000 per year to Rick's New York dancers over the course of the next several years compares to Rick's recent nationwide overall annual pre-tax income levels in the $15 to $20 million dollar range. Thus, under the multi-year settlement plan, the settlement payments won't push Ricks into the 'red'. But it will noticeably reduce profitability over the course of the next potential 8 years ( 15 million divided by 1.833 million = 8.1 ). Had the entire 15 million in settlement money been required to be paid out immediately, a different 'story' would apply and Rick's investors would have arguably been running for the exits. Similarly, had the effect of the lawsuit not been confined to just Rick's New York club alone, i.e. total settlement money increasing by a factor of 10+ to pay dancers working for ALL of Rick's US clubs, the company would have effectively been bankrupted.
Also an indirect result of the multi-year settlement plan is that dancers involved in the lawsuit will continue to be part of the 'active' public record for however many years are required before the entire settlement has been paid out to them ( at a rate of $1k, $2k or whatever per year ) and the case officially closed.
It's also worth noting from Rick's financial statement that only 50% of the company's revenues actually come from 'service' income i.e. dancer 'house' fees, the club's 'split' of private dance / VIP / CR money etc. The other 50% comes from sale of alcoholic beverages, food, merchandise etc.
Finally, it should be noted that the Rick's settlement amounts are based solely on 'back' minimum wage payouts plus reimbursement of house fees. There is no element of additional payouts for 'damages' ... as is now being claimed in Ms. Frank's lawsuit, and which may actually be awarded as the result of under-aged hiring.
Last edited by Melonie; 04-05-2015 at 07:40 AM.





“What a caterpillar calls the end of the world we call a butterfly.” - ECKHART TOLLE





well, 'right' back might be a bit optimistic ... more like years later after several DOL hearings and court cases !If the club does not follow Labor Laws properly, they have to give money taken right back!
Bookmarks