Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE STATUS—S.D.N.Y.: Exotic dancer’s FLSA claim against club may proceed, (Sep 5, 2025)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

A reasonable jury could find that the degree of control that the club exercised over the dancer established an employee-employer relationship, rather than an independent contractor.

An exotic dancer who sued a New York club, alleging that it acted as her employer and was liable for wage and hour violations, prevailed against a summary judgment motion. She alleged that she and others in similar positions were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees, depriving them of wages and protections guaranteed under federal and state labor laws. A New York federal court determined that a jury could find that the degree of control that the club exercised over the dancers established an employee-employer relationship. There was evidence that the club maintained significant oversight, setting house rules governing attire, conduct, performance style, and customer interactions (Camacho v. 673 J.R.V. Corp. d/b/a Diamond Club, et al., No. 22-CV-07107 (SN) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2025)).

Detailed rules, mandatory shifts. An exotic dancer sued her former employer, a New York club, alleging that she and others in similar positions were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees, depriving them of wages and protections guaranteed under federal and state labor laws. The dancer claimed that the club exercised substantial control over her work environment, imposed detailed rules regarding appearance and performance, set mandatory shifts, and managed customer interactions and fees. According to the dancer, this control created an employment relationship, entitling her to minimum wage, overtime pay, and reimbursement for expenses such as costume purchases and “tip-outs” to other staff.

The dancer initiated legal proceedings asserting violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York state labor law, including failure to pay minimum wage, improper deductions from compensation, and unjust enrichment from mandatory house fees and tip pooling arrangements. The club filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that no reasonable jury would find the dancer to be an employee of the club. The club asserted that dancers had significant freedom to determine their own schedules, select music, cultivate clientele, work for other clubs, and earn substantial income through tips, which were characteristics more aligned with independent business operators than employees.

Economic realities test. The federal district court addressed the procedural issue under rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, reviewing whether there were no material facts at issue, so that the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Applying the multi-factor “economic realities” test that courts use in FLSA misclassification cases, the court weighed several factors: the degree of control exercised by the club, the dancer’s opportunity for profit or loss, the relative investment in facilities and equipment, the degree of skill required, the permanency of the relationship, and whether the service provided was integral to the business.

Control. The court determined that a jury could conclude the club maintained significant oversight of the dancers, setting house rules governing attire, conduct, performance style, and customer interactions. Dancers were required to work particular shifts, comply with management’s directives, and pay house fees, all of which suggested control consistent with employee status. The evidence indicated that the dancers invested little capital compared to the club’s substantial investment in the facility, marketing, and operations, and their ability to earn income was tied primarily to access to the club’s patrons, not to independent business acumen.

No special training or skill. The court also noted that while dancing requires talent, the work did not involve specialized training or entrepreneurial skill akin to independent contractors in professional fields, and pointed out the permanence of the relationship, as many dancers worked regularly and over extended periods. It rejected the club’s arguments that freedom in scheduling or customer cultivation converted the relationship into an independent contracting arrangement. Based on the undisputed facts and the disputed facts viewed in the dancer’s favor, the court concluded that a jury could find that the degree of control that the club exercised over the dancers established an employee-employer relationship.

The case is No. 22-CV-07107.

Attorneys: Raymond Nardo (Law Office of Raymond Nardo) for Sky Marlene Camacho. Jeffrey A. Kimmel (Akerman) for 673 J.R.V. Corp. d/b/a Diamond Club, John LaCourte and Lucilene Martins.

Companies: J.R.V. Corp.; Diamond Club

Cases: WageHour EmployeeStatus MinimumWage StateLawClaims NewYorkNews