Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brasso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: It was the definition of a high profile trial involving
Speaker 1: two movie stars, their broken marriage, revelations of vicious fights,
Speaker 1: alcohol and drug abuse, and claims of physical abuse by both.
Speaker 1: Johnny Depp was suing his ex wife Amber Heard for
Speaker 1: defamation over her op ed piece which he claimed falsely
Speaker 1: accused him of abusing her. Heard was countersuing for defamation
Speaker 1: over statements by his lawyer which she claimed falsely accused
Speaker 1: her of creating a hoax surrounding the abuse allegations. They
Speaker 1: both testified to contradictory facts. It started with slapping um,
Speaker 1: and it got to be repetitive slaps where he'd hold
Speaker 1: me um in a position and slapped me multiple times.
Speaker 1: Never did I myself have reached the point of h
Speaker 1: striking Misheard in any way, nor have I ever struck
Speaker 1: any woman in my life. The jury awarded Depth ten
Speaker 1: million dollars in compensatory damages and five million impunitive damages.
Speaker 1: After finding that herd had defamed him by claiming he
Speaker 1: abused her, The jury awarded her two million dollars in
Speaker 1: compensatory damages. For Depth's lawyer statement that she created a
Speaker 1: hoax joining me his name of Romani, President of West
Speaker 1: Coast Trial Lawyers. How did you see the verdict? Was
Speaker 1: there a clear winner Johnny Depp one? And it wasn't closed.
Speaker 1: I would describe it as a complete and total victory,
Speaker 1: especially after this humiliating defeat he stuff heard. When you
Speaker 1: do the sun in the UK to what do you
Speaker 1: attribute depth success? Here? Two factors likability and credibility. No
Speaker 1: question that Johnny Depp was the more likable witnesses, both
Speaker 1: inside the courtroom and in the courtroom of public opinions.
Speaker 1: But importantly credibility is the reason Amber heard loss. She
Speaker 1: lied about facts that really had nothing to do with
Speaker 1: the abuse, but her donating seven million dollars in divorce
Speaker 1: pursueding secarity when she didn't do so. The jury didn't
Speaker 1: buy that she pledged it, not donated it. And even
Speaker 1: when it came to TMZ and the video that she
Speaker 1: took on her phone made its way to TMZ, it
Speaker 1: was leaked obviously by her or someone working in her direction. Similarly,
Speaker 1: when she fabled for the t r O the temporary
Speaker 1: restraining order in two thousand and sixteen and TNZ was
Speaker 1: picked up. It had to come from Amber Heard, So
Speaker 1: when she lied about these facts, the jurors were free
Speaker 1: to disregard her testimony entirely, and they chose to do so. Also,
Speaker 1: she exaggerated to the extent of her injuries. She told
Speaker 1: the jurors that she thought Johnny Depp was going to
Speaker 1: kill her, that death hit her so many times that
Speaker 1: she lost count the pictures, and even though they did
Speaker 1: support injuries, they didn't show an attempt to murder our
Speaker 1: selony assault. So for those reasons, the jurors sided with
Speaker 1: death and it chose to punish her. What about the
Speaker 1: fact that the jury awarded her two million dollars based
Speaker 1: on some statements that were made by his lawyer. The
Speaker 1: jury did, surprisingly award Amber Heard two million dollars on
Speaker 1: only one of her counterclaims. But as you mentioned, it
Speaker 1: wasn't a statement made by Death. It was made by
Speaker 1: depth former divorce lawyer, Adam Waldman, and it related to
Speaker 1: the two thousand and sixteen incident where l apt were
Speaker 1: called to their downtown Los Angeles apartment, and specifically, Waldman
Speaker 1: said that it was a setup and it was a
Speaker 1: hoax that l APD were called, and it turned out
Speaker 1: that amber Heard didn't make that phone call, someone from
Speaker 1: New York did. And amber Heard didn't cooperate with l
Speaker 1: apt when they arrived. I think based on those two
Speaker 1: important facts, the jurors found that, you know, Waldman did
Speaker 1: the same herbs importantly, because Waldman was acting as death agents,
Speaker 1: not agents in the term of contacting agent, but the
Speaker 1: legal term, because there was a principal agent relationship. Death
Speaker 1: is responsible for Waldman's defamatory statement as a matter of law,
Speaker 1: and therefore that two million dollars offset the ten point
Speaker 1: three five million dollars at these Otherwise, oh, the total
Speaker 1: judgment will be eight point three five millions in Johnny Depth.
Speaker 1: Savor Heard and her lawyers have said that Johnny Depp
Speaker 1: had an advantage here because of his wealth, power, and fame.
Speaker 1: There's no question that the public support was overwhelmingly in
Speaker 1: Johnny depth favor, and some of it was because the
Speaker 1: factors outside of her control, but some of it was
Speaker 1: because of her own doing self inflicted wounds or worse
Speaker 1: errors that I like to call them. So men and
Speaker 1: women of all generations love Johnny Depp. He's a handsome, charming,
Speaker 1: charismatic guy. Be they've in fans of his acting for
Speaker 1: decades heard also is the face of the me too
Speaker 1: movement that a lot of men unfortunately thinks has gone
Speaker 1: too far. But obviously this is a legal case and
Speaker 1: it should be tried in the courtroom, and the decisions
Speaker 1: to these based on the evidence, observes or people. And
Speaker 1: there's no question that Herd was less likable and that
Speaker 1: she lost the pr battle. And because Johnny Depp was
Speaker 1: so credible, he was still vulnerable. He talked about his
Speaker 1: own shortcoming, his drug and alcohol abuse, the physical abuse
Speaker 1: he suffered the hands of his parents. It's very open
Speaker 1: and very transparent, and he owned up to a lot
Speaker 1: of his mistakes. But Himble Herd denied everything. She denied
Speaker 1: ever striking depth, except for one incident. She really minimized
Speaker 1: her drug use just like he's one ton of airplane
Speaker 1: with a flight attendant, when it was clear that she
Speaker 1: was also using substances of death. And I think if
Speaker 1: Herd had gn a more balanced approach and she had
Speaker 1: said that she was also verbally abusive, this is a
Speaker 1: mutually violent relationship. They were both victims, they were both perpetrators.
Speaker 1: I think that would have been a pass to victory.
Speaker 1: But for her in statistic extreme positions. You didn't accept
Speaker 1: any responsibility for anything that happened during the course of
Speaker 1: the relationship, and I think as a result, people didn't
Speaker 1: find her likable or credited. Why do you think he
Speaker 1: lost the UK case where the standard for libel is
Speaker 1: less than it is here, and yet he won this case.
Speaker 1: What made the difference? It's very surprising standard is higher
Speaker 1: for a planet here in the United States. We talked
Speaker 1: about that clear and convincing standard because John, that's the
Speaker 1: public figure, has to show actual malice, whereas in the UK,
Speaker 1: verden is on the defendant the sons to prove that
Speaker 1: the statements were substantially true. That's why a lot of
Speaker 1: legal compensators, including myself, thought that it was a mistake
Speaker 1: for him to file directly against her here in the
Speaker 1: United States and he would lose again. What turns out
Speaker 1: this was both an extraordinary legal comeback but really public
Speaker 1: relations genius moved by doing so. You know, my twenty
Speaker 1: years of practice, I've never seen someone come back like this.
Speaker 1: How much was it the lawyering? It seemed like Herd's
Speaker 1: lawyers were just out lawyered by Depth's team. They were
Speaker 1: obviously Heard made her mistakes for her lawyers similarly made
Speaker 1: a number of strategic legal mistakes. We can go through them.
Speaker 1: The most important which one They ran out of time? Um,
Speaker 1: they used far too much time doing a very slow
Speaker 1: crosses examination during Depth take in chiefs. In fact, when
Speaker 1: Depth team initially rested, hers lawyers had to use more
Speaker 1: time than Depth did, so they ran out of time
Speaker 1: and to go through witness quickly and the end, and
Speaker 1: couldn't call witnesses if they wanted to call. Other strategic
Speaker 1: mistakes include, frankly, Elaine bedehof handling Camille bass As his
Speaker 1: objections very poorly. Someone who's a practicing law for almost
Speaker 1: four years is a basic evidentiary objection Where you learned
Speaker 1: and your specond her of law school And for anyone
Speaker 1: who followed the trial on TV or on social media,
Speaker 1: it's clear that she was unable to reformulate a question
Speaker 1: to overcome the objections. You know, there were a few
Speaker 1: in the person witnesses supporting Amber Heard and deposition testimony
Speaker 1: isn't the same. Remember herself testified waitning here to testify.
Speaker 1: There were some paid experts to show us in person,
Speaker 1: but everyone else testified. Your video tape deposition and it
Speaker 1: is not the thing. Um. Similarly, they focused too much
Speaker 1: on drug and alcohol abuse, and it's clear that Johnny
Speaker 1: does have a substance. To these films who've admitted it.
Speaker 1: This is the case of physical violence, case for sexual violence.
Speaker 1: That should have been the focus, not the fact that
Speaker 1: Amber and Johnny were arguing and you know he would
Speaker 1: get swungs and you know abuse tou So they really
Speaker 1: lost their focus. And frankly, they don't really control their clients.
Speaker 1: You know, Amber heard had testified to fully that she
Speaker 1: intended to donate seven million dollars to charity, but you know,
Speaker 1: ranting to financial problems and you know, I had to
Speaker 1: keep the money and she was embarrassed, and that's why
Speaker 1: she allied, since that would come across much more credible. UM. Similarly,
Speaker 1: she admitted to leaking the video of CMD because she
Speaker 1: wanted the public support because everyone likes Johnny Depp, and
Speaker 1: then that would have been more believable. And they so
Speaker 1: both the legal strategy was for and in terms of
Speaker 1: prepping the witness to testify, I think they did not
Speaker 1: do as good as a job as they could. Happen,
Speaker 1: didn't make a difference that they brought the case that
Speaker 1: Depp brought the case in Virginia instead of California. It did.
Speaker 1: It made a big difference because First Amendment laws and
Speaker 1: more friendly here in Los Angeles, California, where I practice.
Speaker 1: There's something that's called an anti slap statches that allowed
Speaker 1: the judges tend to be liberal here in Los Angeles
Speaker 1: to dismiss definations before they go to a jury trial.
Speaker 1: Never strong here. The next to the best venue would
Speaker 1: have been New York for the A C l U,
Speaker 1: which is pretty liberal as well Northern Virginia where the
Speaker 1: Washington Posted headquarters and their servers are. It's not a
Speaker 1: bad venue for defendant in a defamation case, but it's
Speaker 1: probably not as of l A or York tends to
Speaker 1: be a more of a purple state in terms of
Speaker 1: the dury pool. So it was somewhat favorable for death
Speaker 1: but certainly not a favorable as the UK does the
Speaker 1: same as if the jury really carefully considered each claim
Speaker 1: separately and follow the judge's instructions, it's questionable that they
Speaker 1: understood the damages portion because they did return the verdict
Speaker 1: on one claim without a new damages So this is
Speaker 1: a complicated case, there's three alleged defamatory statements on both
Speaker 1: sides that higher burden approved, there's alice compensatory damages, there's
Speaker 1: punitive damages. This look they ultimately got it right, but
Speaker 1: at least during the initial verdict that they completed, and
Speaker 1: they must have been some complete would you surprise that
Speaker 1: they came back for punitive damages when, as you said,
Speaker 1: it appeared to be a mutually abusive relationship in a
Speaker 1: lot of respects. Anytime you proved intentional conduct or reckless
Speaker 1: conduct punitives on play. Obviously, to prove malice depths, Plays
Speaker 1: had to prove that heard knew she was lying when
Speaker 1: she published the statement, or she acted in a reckless
Speaker 1: disregard for the truth. That being said, you know, five
Speaker 1: million dollars and punitive damages when Johnny Depp Players didn't
Speaker 1: ask for any specific damage amount during closing was surprising
Speaker 1: to me and one of the reasons why I believe
Speaker 1: this was an overwhelming win for Johnny Depp. This is
Speaker 1: one case based on the unique facts here, but a
Speaker 1: lot of legal experts are saying it will have a
Speaker 1: chilling effect on women coming forward in the future to
Speaker 1: bring cases of domestic violence there's a huge step back.
Speaker 1: Let's be honest, sexual assaults domestic violence, those are two
Speaker 1: of the most hunder reported clients in the country. Women
Speaker 1: are hesitant to come forward, and there's many reasons, but
Speaker 1: one of the primary reasons is the disparity and power
Speaker 1: and wealth. Oftentimes the men that are used their athletes,
Speaker 1: they're entertainers, of politicians, their CEOs, their men have significant means.
Speaker 1: And now women find themselves in a position where they
Speaker 1: may be sued by the men that they're accusing. And
Speaker 1: the men have hundreds of thousands or even millions of
Speaker 1: dollars to subject them to civil litigation and also higher
Speaker 1: attorneys to defend themselves, and they may not have that money.
Speaker 1: So it's going to give them one more reason to
Speaker 1: potentially not report the abuse to the assaults for law
Speaker 1: enforcement or medical personnel. I think it will also emboldened
Speaker 1: men who file these text to cases. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: all started really with President Trump, who's defamation lawsuits to
Speaker 1: really pressure its political adversaries. And I'm not comparing death
Speaker 1: to the former president, but you know, to the sense
Speaker 1: that men are accused and they think that's been falsely accused.
Speaker 1: Sometimes the best defense is a good offense, and we're
Speaker 1: going to see copycat litigation. There's no doubt in my
Speaker 1: mind her it is going to appeal. What are her
Speaker 1: chances it will be up to a battle. I don't
Speaker 1: see any good legal basis for appeal the rest of
Speaker 1: the illegal error. And I know they've talked about the
Speaker 1: UK judgment not coming in and some of the social
Speaker 1: media presidents, but I don't think the judges of anything wrong.
Speaker 1: The UK case is obviously different case, different parties, and
Speaker 1: heard looking a party to that case, different law that applies,
Speaker 1: but really has no presidential impacts here, really social media,
Speaker 1: not much the judge can do. The judged that potentially
Speaker 1: sequestioned the juror that rarely, if ever happens in a
Speaker 1: civil case. You just don't have the same rights that
Speaker 1: you do as a criminal defendant. Um And apparently there
Speaker 1: was some evidence that was excuted. But what I saw
Speaker 1: from the judge is the judges scouted a lot of
Speaker 1: the good evidence for Johnny depth but the Kate Moss
Speaker 1: and the Seattle police officer so imember her to open
Speaker 1: the door and talked about Kate Moss and says that
Speaker 1: she had never been abused as towards the next so
Speaker 1: and the judge called it pretty fairly. You can't appeal
Speaker 1: a factual decision by a jury, such as credibility issues
Speaker 1: and those types of things. So I understand why Amber
Speaker 1: Heard is going to appeal because you know, her back
Speaker 1: is up against the wall and she needs to clear
Speaker 1: her name. And she's now probably one of the most
Speaker 1: despised women in America right now because of this case
Speaker 1: in social media. So this is her one chance and
Speaker 1: as opposed to trying to negotiate a lesser payout and
Speaker 1: exchange for the waves of the feel I do expect
Speaker 1: that appeals to happen, but I don't think the appeal
Speaker 1: will be heard. Will appeal interestful accrue on the judgment
Speaker 1: while that appeals attending. And importantly, because death proved that
Speaker 1: the defamatory statements were intentional, not only heeded a damages,
Speaker 1: but the claims aren't dischargeable in bankrupt So Abho is
Speaker 1: not going to go file after seven or eleven and
Speaker 1: get out of this judgment. This is a non dischargeable judgment.
Speaker 1: No thanks, NeiMa. That's trial lawyer NeiMa Romani. Neither a
Speaker 1: mountain of litigation nor a new pro worker law in
Speaker 1: California have caused sweeping changes in strip clubs, so the
Speaker 1: dancers are turning to unions as a way to improve
Speaker 1: their conditions. Joining me is Aaron mulveney, Bloomberg Law senior
Speaker 1: reporter who has researched and written about this issue. Why
Speaker 1: is there an effort to unionize strippers? The push for
Speaker 1: a union in California um goes back to something that
Speaker 1: actually is a nationwide practice with strip clubs. These answers
Speaker 1: are largely classified. The practices are pretty uniform that they
Speaker 1: would be classified as independent contractors, which on one hand,
Speaker 1: means that all of the tips that the dancers are
Speaker 1: and they get to take home and that's their go
Speaker 1: home pay, and a lot of dancers historically have said
Speaker 1: that that means that they can take home up to
Speaker 1: a fifteen hundred dollars a night. But through hundreds and
Speaker 1: hundreds of lawsuits filed in recent years, there has been
Speaker 1: an issue with that classification because if you're an independent contractor,
Speaker 1: you don't have the right to workers compensation if you're injured,
Speaker 1: and minimum wage over time. And then there are a
Speaker 1: lot of practices that are also problematic where clubs will
Speaker 1: charge stage fees to dance, and so you could technically
Speaker 1: end up in the red if customers don't show up,
Speaker 1: or you don't get tips that night, or you don't
Speaker 1: get a desirable shift. And of course this is a
Speaker 1: broad brush, but there have been many losses over the
Speaker 1: years nationwide that have said that dancers have been exploited,
Speaker 1: have been harassed, have been in really dangerous working conditions,
Speaker 1: and have little rights because of the way they're classified.
Speaker 1: And then into this situation in California, there's a law
Speaker 1: that was passed that makes it much harder for most
Speaker 1: businesses to classify workers this way, and a lot of
Speaker 1: strippers that I spoke to said the strip club haven't
Speaker 1: necessarily changed their practices. And the other thing that's been
Speaker 1: going on is that the pandemic made it much harder
Speaker 1: with the customer base being a lot slower and the
Speaker 1: club's meeting more dancers. And there have just been a
Speaker 1: lot of problems with pushback in the workplace where workers
Speaker 1: don't really feel like they have the same rights or
Speaker 1: respect other workers. And it's things that are sadly very
Speaker 1: entrenched in the system. As far as you know, the
Speaker 1: bad working conditions tell us about some of the problems
Speaker 1: they have on stage, at least for some of the
Speaker 1: strippers who are dancing at some of these clubs. They
Speaker 1: say that there have been unsafe conditions on the stage
Speaker 1: where the stage isn't built properly while they're dancing, or
Speaker 1: there has been glass on the floor that hasn't been
Speaker 1: cleaned up or addressed. Other safety conditions are less direct
Speaker 1: like that, and there might be if a customer across
Speaker 1: the line and they feel like their safety is at risk,
Speaker 1: which I think happens in the stutting where there's alcohol involved,
Speaker 1: and that in the nature of sex work sometimes could
Speaker 1: draw that out. But you know, again, these women or
Speaker 1: men are workers and they deserve respect and protection in
Speaker 1: the workplace just like anybody else. They don't have workers
Speaker 1: comp to fall back on if they get injury. I'm
Speaker 1: wondering if it's harder to unionize strippers as opposed to
Speaker 1: other kinds of workers. You talk to Selena, the president
Speaker 1: of the independent union Strippers United, and she said strippers
Speaker 1: are treated like they aren't valuable, and they've internalized that.
Speaker 1: They don't always see themselves as deserving of rights. What's
Speaker 1: the Lena expressed after speaking with a lot of different
Speaker 1: dancers around the state in California is that they are
Speaker 1: all experiencing similar problems. But the way that these strip
Speaker 1: clubs have operated in the past, dancers, they've often been
Speaker 1: independent and they fear often retaliation if they speak out.
Speaker 1: And so these are things that are really counter to
Speaker 1: what a union is all about, you know, joining together
Speaker 1: as workers. So what the leaders of the union effort
Speaker 1: are trying to do is change the DNA of of
Speaker 1: how these dancers think about themselves as workers and valuing
Speaker 1: themselves and the respect that they deserve, because honestly, there
Speaker 1: wouldn't be strip clubs about these dancers, and they face
Speaker 1: a lot of dangerous working conditions in so many ways.
Speaker 1: But often at least Selina says, she hears a lot
Speaker 1: of stories about more dramatic exploitation than you might hear
Speaker 1: about in other industries. The labor push in Californi and
Speaker 1: it comes against what you, right, is a backdrop of
Speaker 1: a mountain of litigation. Just tell us a little about
Speaker 1: that litigation. Sure, So it also goes back to what
Speaker 1: I was explaining about how a lot of the practices
Speaker 1: around the country rely on independent contractor relationships and that
Speaker 1: has there was kind of a wave of lawsuits that
Speaker 1: we're targeting strip clubs of at the last decade because
Speaker 1: there are violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act potentially,
Speaker 1: and and Austin strippers have won these fights, you know,
Speaker 1: against individual strip clubs and one major settlements around the country,
Speaker 1: and these have been happening pretty frequently. What we see
Speaker 1: though is that, you know, the strip clubs can pay
Speaker 1: a settlement, but practices have largely remained uniform throughout the industry.
Speaker 1: And part of it is because strippers can make a
Speaker 1: lot of take home pay, but with that they lose
Speaker 1: a safety net that like an employment relationship would have.
Speaker 1: So you have lawsuits on one hand, but you're not
Speaker 1: seeing dramatic change in the industry. Over the years, several
Speaker 1: courts have ruled that strippers are legally employees under wage
Speaker 1: and our laws, not independent contractors. But are you saying
Speaker 1: that the strip clubs don't honor that right? And there
Speaker 1: are so many strip clubs. There are major franchises though,
Speaker 1: for example, um one of the largest is Deja Vu,
Speaker 1: and I spoke with the CEO of that company and
Speaker 1: what he has told me before is in the settlements
Speaker 1: where a court has ruled or settled that they do
Speaker 1: need to change their classification to employees. So many of
Speaker 1: his competitors do not change their classification and he loses
Speaker 1: dancers or the club isn't profitable enough. So I think
Speaker 1: would need to happen on a broader scale in order
Speaker 1: to completely change Can you give us a little more
Speaker 1: detail about why legislation isn't the answer? So for this article,
Speaker 1: I spoke with a lot of attorneys who hear from
Speaker 1: strippers and dancers themselves, and strip club opera waters and
Speaker 1: so I can't speak for every single strip club in California,
Speaker 1: but the state law that was intended to change my
Speaker 1: classification to contractors, according to these people, these stakeholders that
Speaker 1: I spoke to haven't necessarily changed their practices. They'll create
Speaker 1: contracts to make dancers owners of the club or charge
Speaker 1: them for rent time on the stage, and arguably those
Speaker 1: could be subject to a lawsuit, but they might be
Speaker 1: too small to be worth it to a plainists firm,
Speaker 1: and that would be the way that that would be enforced.
Speaker 1: So yes, I think that a lot of strip clubs
Speaker 1: haven't changed their practices, even in California where there are
Speaker 1: much stricter worker protections currently, and a lot of the
Speaker 1: dancers who have become employees are finding themselves with part
Speaker 1: time work as opposed to getting to work longer and
Speaker 1: make more money potentially, and they'll have to be scheduled,
Speaker 1: they might not get a desirable time. So Selena, for example,
Speaker 1: told me that she thinks things have gotten worse to
Speaker 1: some extent for the dancers. Let's talk about the other
Speaker 1: side of the story, because you talked to some strip
Speaker 1: club operators and tell us what they claim about clubs
Speaker 1: shutting down and people losing out on work. So the
Speaker 1: CEO of Deja Zu spoke to me, and that's one
Speaker 1: of the largest strip club operators in the US, and
Speaker 1: he said seven of his clubs in California became unprofitable
Speaker 1: and after the new law that we were discussing in
Speaker 1: California and after settlements required him to classify dancers as employees,
Speaker 1: and dancers of those clubs only get part time shifts,
Speaker 1: which obviously is less ideal than a full employment um
Speaker 1: job and relationship, because that's when you would get access
Speaker 1: to full benefits. He also spoke of losing dancers to
Speaker 1: competitors who still have the traditional independent contractor relationship, and
Speaker 1: from his perspective, he thinks that the employment model doesn't
Speaker 1: offer what the strip club business needs, including for the
Speaker 1: dancers themselves. Has there ever been a unionized strip club? Yes,
Speaker 1: there was an effort in San Francisco and a strip
Speaker 1: club called The Lusty Lady was the first unionized club
Speaker 1: in the United States. It really stood alone, but it
Speaker 1: did show that it was possible. It closed in two
Speaker 1: thousand thirteen and there hasn't been another one since until
Speaker 1: this recent push at this club in Los Angeles. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so why did they target this particular club? Star Garden
Speaker 1: Topless Dive Bar. I did have the opportunity to talk
Speaker 1: to someone who worked at Star Garden. She asked me
Speaker 1: to go by her stage named Lilith, and Lilith had
Speaker 1: an experience that speaks to why it could be difficult
Speaker 1: to unionize these strip clubs. She said that she did
Speaker 1: notice problems but didn't speak to her other co workers
Speaker 1: about them. And then there were a few things that
Speaker 1: they claim happened where they felt that very prominent dancers
Speaker 1: were retaliated against for speaking about safety conditions or unruly customers,
Speaker 1: and they were fired and not given shifts. Any longer.
Speaker 1: And she said those incidents sparked these dancers to come
Speaker 1: together and to talk about things that they had in common.
Speaker 1: And Selena said that it was the first good effort
Speaker 1: because they were a small group of tight knit group
Speaker 1: and they kind of had the passion to understand what
Speaker 1: a union could possibly do to improve their conditions. And
Speaker 1: they sent a petition to the owners which they felt
Speaker 1: like was not received, and they started picketing and they've
Speaker 1: been doing that UM for the last couple of months
Speaker 1: in the hopes of being the first union since that effort.
Speaker 1: And I think that the hope for Stripes United, which
Speaker 1: is the kind of the grassroots independent labor organization for
Speaker 1: these strippers, is that this union will show others that
Speaker 1: it's possible to join together and start trying to change
Speaker 1: the brain chemistry of some of the dancers who were
Speaker 1: so used to being independent and autonomous. Karin, what do
Speaker 1: they have to do? Do you know what the next
Speaker 1: step is toward forming a union. They'll have to go
Speaker 1: through the traditional UM process through the National Labor Relations Board,
Speaker 1: and they'll have to go through a union election, and
Speaker 1: and they're in the early stages of that process and
Speaker 1: getting it together. It's definitely the early stage of the
Speaker 1: union effort. As far as class actions, they have been
Speaker 1: successful in the past, but people are not bringing them anymore,
Speaker 1: not necessarily, we're still seeing them nationwide. I spoke to
Speaker 1: a couple of plaintiffs attorneys who have brought these cases
Speaker 1: in the past and still here from dancers, and they
Speaker 1: won major settlements against some of the major operators. But
Speaker 1: these attorneys speculated that a lot of the smaller operators
Speaker 1: could be falling through the cracks potentially based on the
Speaker 1: dancers stories, and if they're small enough clubs, they might
Speaker 1: not be worth it to some of the larger plaintiffs
Speaker 1: firms that would bring a class action case because it's
Speaker 1: not a big operator that has a twenty clubs that
Speaker 1: they run, and that would mean that many more dancers
Speaker 1: that could be part of it, and that that much
Speaker 1: more of a large settlement. So I think that's potentially
Speaker 1: the speculation at this point. We saw a lot of
Speaker 1: major settlements in two thousand nineteen, and there are some
Speaker 1: indications that that has flowed since in California specifically, but
Speaker 1: we have seen major settlements around the country that are
Speaker 1: brought under the Federal Labor laws those are still continuing.
Speaker 1: Are they just trying to unionize in California or are
Speaker 1: they trying to unionize in some of the other states
Speaker 1: where they've had, you know, large settlements. Currently, I only
Speaker 1: know of California and this effort. It's partially because of this,
Speaker 1: this grassroots group that has really focused for for many
Speaker 1: years on trying to on trying to bring dancers together.
Speaker 1: What I find really sad is that in your story,
Speaker 1: so many dancers don't want to be identified by their
Speaker 1: real name because they fear retaliation. Absolutely. What I hear
Speaker 1: is that they fear retaliation from the club owners or
Speaker 1: the industry. Other dancers. They are willing to talk to
Speaker 1: the press, but they've also been abused by the press
Speaker 1: in a lot of ways, and I think that that
Speaker 1: is a reality of people not really always seeing sex
Speaker 1: workers as workers. But they don't dislike their jobs, they
Speaker 1: dislike being treated as lesser and so I think that
Speaker 1: right now, the reason that they asked me to call
Speaker 1: them by their stage names, I respected because they said
Speaker 1: they could experience retaliation from strip clubs, and that's the
Speaker 1: work that they're trying to do right now. Thanks Sarah,
Speaker 1: that's Bloomberg Law Senior Reporter Aaron mulvaney, and that's it
Speaker 1: for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you
Speaker 1: can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
Speaker 1: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
Speaker 1: week night at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June
Speaker 1: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg