Las Vegas Injury Lawyers Blog

When the sun goes down on February 17, 2012, Hooters wings will hopefully begin to sizzle under a more financially sound and responsible management when the Las Vegas Hooters Hotel goes on the auction block. Filing for bankruptcy protection last August, Hooters' hotel owners claimed the 5-year-old $80 million property was $181 million in debt due to overbearing mortgage payments in a sluggish economy. The hotel owners and their largest creditor, Canpartners Realty Holding Co. IV who owns $178 million of the property's debt, have agreed on a settlement to sell the 696-room Las Vegas property at auction. But for the many employees at the Las Vegas Hooters and other Las Vegas hotels, a hotel bankruptcy always brings up to them the question ... "Will I get paid?" If a Las Vegas hotel owes its employees unpaid wages, will these unpaid wages be discharged or settled in a bankruptcy filing?

Under the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers, including Las Vegas employers, are required to pay their employees all wages earned and are liable for any unpaid wages. Further, Section 507 of the Bankruptcy Code states that persons owed "wages, salaries, or commissions, including vacation, severance, and sick leave pay earned by an individual have an allowed unsecured claim but only for wages, salaries, or commissions earned within the earlier of 180 days before the bankruptcy filing or the cessation of the debtor's business, and only to the extent of $ 10,950 for each individual or corporation." But if the Las Vegas employer has absolutely no assets or funds to pay unpaid wages, are their Las Vegas employees left hanging?

Maybe not! Under Boucher v Shaw, 572 F. 3d 1087 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 2009, the court gave "further protection" to Las Vegas employees owed unpaid wages.

In Boucher the Castaways Hotel Casino and Bowling Center filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Part of the debt owed by the Hotel Casino at the time of filing was unpaid wages to several employees. With no assets or funds to satisfy their unpaid wages, several Castaways employees filed a class action lawsuit against three of the Castaways executives - the Chief Executive Officer, the Labor Relations Manager, and the Chief Financial Officer.

The federal district court in Nevada ruled that neither Nevada state law nor the FLSA made a company's executives liable for unpaid wages and dismissed the case. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed holding that the FLSA definition of an "employer" should be "given an expansive interpretation in order to effectuate the FLSA's broad remedial purposes." If executives exercised economic (the CEO and Manager owned 70% and 30% of the Castaways' stock, respectively.) or key control over the employment relation an executive could be liable for unpaid wages owed to a Las Vegas employee and not satisfied in a bankruptcy settlement.

The commentary is for educational and commentary purposes only. If you or someone you know are owed unpaid wages, salaries, or commission, and would like to be represented by a Nevada attorney, contact our office for a free confidential case review and receive a response within hours. Call Toll Free 866-414-0400.

In Atlantic City lawsuits were filed against the Resorts casino with plaintiffs claiming they were fired because they were not young enough. Over fifty women are involved with several lawsuits against Resorts casino over their employment practices. The suits claim after the casino underwent an image change and they were fired because they did not meet "uniform requirements." Some waitresses had worked at Resorts for over twenty years without prior warning. A plaintiff states that Resorts went so far as to have her train the girls replacing her for 90 days and then on the 90th day fired her for uniform inadequacy.

The lawsuit states that the women were required to try on the new uniforms, which were styled in the theme of roaring 20's flapper girls, but the sizes they were given to wear were to small. The plaintiffs say the evaluations were stacked against them intentionally as a way for Resorts to justify firing them and hide any wrongdoing.

Plaintiffs have urged a boycott of Resorts casino, however Resorts has argued that it has done nothing wrong and has followed all state and federal laws regarding its practices. Further, Resorts said it offered the waitresses priority hiring in other positions that were open with the casino and that some waitresses chose to do that.

A full article can be found here: Celebrity attorney Gloria Allred represents Resorts cocktail servers who lost jobs in flap over skimpy costumes

Our law firm does not represent anybody in this incident. The commentary is for educational purposes only. If you or anyone you know has been a victim of discrimination at the workplace and would like to speak to someone about your rights, contact our lawyers for a free confidential case review and receive a response within hours. Call Toll Free 866-414-0400.

On April 19th an ordinance issued by Clark County restricted the definition of "tavern" in regards to gaming. The new ordinance targeted Dotty's and gaming taverns which uses a business model of having fifteen individually standing slot machines and providing an atmosphere similar to that of your grandmother's kitchen. The inside has trinkets, knick-knacks, adequate lighting and offers customers spirits and food.

Jackpot Joanie's, with a similar business model, has suffered as a result of the ordinance as well. The ordinance calls for forcing eight of the fifteen slot machines found in the taverns to be put into a bar. For these small businesses it would require extensive and costly remodeling as well as a restructuring of their business model. Joanie's argues that the true purpose of this ordinance is attack its profits and destroy its successful business model.

In the lawsuit brought by Joanie's they go on to make several claims of the wrong doings of Clack County officials. They point out that the restriction of placing machines into a bar has no reasonableness other then to disrupt business operations. Further, they go on to say that such controls on competition are beyond the state's governed right to limit such industries.

Both Dotty's and Jackpot Joanie's have sought injunctive relief to prevent the ordinance from taking effect.

A full article can be found here: Second chain follows Dotty's in suing county over ordinance

Our law firm does not represent anybody in this case. The commentary is for educational purposes only. If you or someone you know would like to speak to someone about your rights please contact our lawyers for a free confidential case review. Call us toll free at 1-866-414-0400.