Three Point Shot -- Novemberr 2011

by Proskauer Rose LLP
Contact

Tennis Umpires Serve Up Lawsuit against USTA

While many tennis fans got to watch a much anticipated Djokovic-Nadal final at the 2011 U.S. Open, the most interesting draw at this year's tournament may have been between the United States Tennis Association (USTA) and its umpires.  Prior to the start of the U.S. Open, 13 of the world's 26 top-rated umpires decided not to officiate at this year's tournament.  The absentee umpires stayed home in protest of a 30% pay reduction by the USTA and what they considered to be generally inadequate compensation compared to other Grand Slam tournaments.  The USTA-umpire saga took on an added intensity when umpires Steven Meyer, Marc Bell, Larry Mulligan-Gibbs, and Aimee Johnson went from the tennis court to federal court.

On September 8, the four umpires served up a complaint against the USTA in the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the USTA violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), Articles 6 and 19, respectively, by not providing overtime pay to umpires who worked at the U.S. Open.  According to the complaint, U.S. Open umpires routinely worked more than 40 hours per week but were never given overtime pay. Instead, umpires were given a standard daily wage that was never adjusted when umpires worked more than 40 hours during a week.  Both the NYLL and the FLSA require employers to pay time-and-a-half for any overtime worked when an employee works more than 40 hours during a week.

The complaint seeks back overtime pay not only for the named plaintiffs, but for all umpires affected by the USTA's alleged miscategorization of umpires as independent contractors.  The complaint alleges that the USTA owes overtime pay plus interest to umpires who worked at the tournament as far back as 2005, with approximately 300 umpires working at the tournament annually.

On September 30, the USTA filed its answer to the complaint. The USTA argues that the umpires, who work at a tournament that is only three weeks long, are not employees entitled to mandatory overtime pay, but independent contractors.  Under the FLSA and NYLL, workers are not entitled to overtime pay unless they are in an employer-employee relationship.  Independent contractors are not considered employees under the FLSA or NYLL, and therefore not entitled to mandatory overtime pay.

Although there is no clear-cut definition of what constitutes an employee for purposes of the FLSA or NYLL, courts typically look to a series of factors to determine whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor.  Some factors that the court might use to answer this question include the degree of control that umpires have in performing their duties, the permanency of their working relationship with the USTA, the umpires' opportunities for profit and loss related to their work, and the extent to which the umpires' services are an integral part of the USTA's business.

Will the umpires be happy when this case is called?  We will keep you posted.

Ultimate Fighting – It's Like "Swan Lake" – How Come You Can't SEE That?

Swan Lake, one of classical ballet's most beloved works, has men leaping around on a stage. So does mixed martial arts or "MMA."

Swan Lake has characters with weird names (Prince Siegfried, The Master of Batons). So does mixed martial arts. (The Dragon, The Thrashing Machine).

Swan Lake has drama and violence.  So does mixed martial arts.

There's a difference between Swan Lake and MMA, though. Swan Lake is performed regularly on stages in New York State, but MMA is not. That's because mixed martial arts effectively is banned under New York Unconsol. Law § 8905-a(2), enacted into law in 1997. The law prohibits live matches of "combative sports," a term defined in such a way as to expressly carve out "boxing, wrestling and sparring," and certain specified forms of permitted martial arts. Remaining within the ban is any sport in which the "contestants deliver, or are not forbidden by the applicable rules thereof from delivering kicks, punches or blows of any kind to the body of an opponent or opponents."

In Jones, et al v. Schneiderman, No. 11-8215 (S.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 15, 2011), Zuffa LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting, a major promoter of mixed martial arts, and a group of MMA fans, fighters, trainers and others involved in the sport are looking to overturn the statutory ban. The MMA lawsuit plaintiffs argue that MMA matches are "expressive activity" protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. That's the same argument that the American Civil Liberties Union has made to protect the rights of pole dancers and erotic performance artists. Barry Friedman, a constitutional law professor at New York University who is one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, made the comparison to dancing explicit: MMA is "martial artistry…. The nature of martial arts is a lot like dancing."

The plaintiffs' complaint, a 105-page essay on the benefits of MMA to individuals and to the economy, makes numerous other legal arguments supporting the plaintiffs' position:

  • The statutory ban on MMA is unconstitutionally overbroad and facially invalid, because it so broadly criminalizes conduct directed at promoting or profiting from "combative sports" that it sweeps in constitutionally protected activities;
  • The ban is unconstitutionally vague, because it is impossible to determine precisely what "combative sports" activities are prohibited;
  • The ban violates the plaintiffs' right to equal protection of the laws, because it is singled out and treated differently from other similar sports events and activities;
  • The ban violates due process of law because it is irrational and arbitrary;
  • The ban unconstitutionally restricts interstate commerce; and
  • A component in the law added in 2001 to prohibit combative sports matches at venues that sell alcoholic beverages is unconstitutional as applied to live performances of MMA.

Perhaps the plaintiffs will succeed in convincing the federal courts that MMA is an expressive activity entitled to the same constitutional protection as a performance of Swan Lake. They are no doubt hoping for more success than MMA fighter Chuck Liddell had with a different set of judges and another kind of dancing.

We Are Reliably Informed…

Muhammad Ali Book Dispute Settled

In our September 2011 edition we reported on a lawsuit brought over alleged unauthorized use of boxing legend Muhammad Ali's "Float Like a Butterfly, Sting Like a Bee" quote in an advertisement. Attorneys for Ali reported to the court on November 8 that the matter had been settled in principle on undisclosed terms.

Supreme Court of Ohio Declines OSU Request to Submit to Mediation Dispute over Turnover of Correspondence on Player Suspension

In our September 2011 edition we reported on the ruling of the Ohio Supreme Court in ESPN v. Ohio State University, an action brought by the network to compel the school to release unredacted versions of internal correspondence relating to the suspension of several players.  In a letter dated October 4, the court denied OSU's motion to submit the case to mediation and settle out of court.  With the denial of this motion, the court proceeded with the calendar set in the September 21 court order, and evidence was submitted by the parties October 11 on the merits of the dispute.

"Super Bowl Shuffle" Dispute Settled

In our May 2011 edition we reported on a complaint filed by the wife of "Super Bowl Shuffle" co-writer Richard Meyer and her exclusive licensing agent, Renaissance Marketing Corporation against Random House for the unlicensed use of the 1985 hit song.  The name of that tune is now "settled." According to court filings, on July 15, 2011, a stipulation of dismissal was entered. Terms of the settlement have not been disclosed.

Coca-Cola Gets Large Attorney Fee Award in World Cup Song Dispute

In our March 2011 edition we reported on the dispute between the Coca-Cola Company and the writer of the Spanish-language version of "Wavin' Flag," Coke's World Cup theme song.  Following the court's summary judgment ruling in favor of Coca-Cola, the company sought an award of attorney fees. The magistrate's report recommending the award concluded that due to the "incontrovertible evidence and the binding law" of the circuit, the plaintiff should not have pursued the litigation after the evidence became known to him during discovery. The magistrate's recommendation of an award of partial attorney's fees in the amount of $535,135.00 and partial costs in the amount of $43,011.99 was affirmed by the district court on August 8, 2011. This massive award incorporates a substantial reduction from the original amount Coke sought. The court justified this reduction by noting that Coca-Cola was entitled to reasonable attorney fees, not the fees that it paid for the services of a premium law firm that had staffed 19 attorneys on the case.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Proskauer Rose LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Proskauer Rose LLP
Contact
more
less

Proskauer Rose LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.