Wrestlers file lawsuit against WWE over independant contractor/employee BS

[Loss]

I still don't think Kanyon is really gay. He has a ponytail for crying out loud.

[S.L.L.]

I still don't think Kanyon is really gay. He has a ponytail for crying out loud.

Yeah, he's got some serious Chuck & Larry shit going on. Dude is really desperate for attention, and if he uses this as a vehicle for that, he's going to sabotage what might be the best shot at real change in the wrestling industry in forever.

[Bob Morris]

I would imagine the legal team representing the three wrestlers in question has instructed them to keep their mouths shut about things. And to be fair to Kanyon, it's been a while since we've heard of some spectacle of him trying to get attention.

 

Or at least the last I've heard of one... unless you count his appearance in that CNN special after Benoit's death, and even then, he didn't really say anything out of the ordinary.

[kjh]

Well, Kanyon has his autobiography coming out in just over a months time, which details his struggles to keep his sexuality a secret from his wrestling peers that ultimately led to a suicide attempt and severe depression, so it's probably too late to hope he shuts his mouth and keeps quiet about things that could hurt their case.

[Guest Iron Chad]

I don't think Kanyon hasn't said anything already (sexuality, depression, drug abuse, etc.) that will come out in the book that will hurt his case. He's been frank publicly and on Stern.

 

 

S.L.L. I don't know how particularly "gifted" as an attorney McDevitt is, but the dude gets results. Getting all that money out of L. Brent Bozell and pretty much nullifying Bozell as any kind of a relevant anti-WWE force in the media and with sponsors was amazing. McDevitt also has the luxury of a large firm behind him, so whatever the problem is, he can have several associates and paralegals do the "real legal work" and the research and he can be the public face to the media and in court. As an attorney myself, I respect the results the guy has gotten. Other than the World Wildlife Fund debacle (which was in England -- I think McDevitt may have tried to represent them over there, which would've been a huge mistake) over the years the results have been good to great. WWE paid nearly nothing out of its own pocket to settle the Owen Hart matter. What they did pay was pretty much reimbursed totally by the harness manufacturer.

 

You may think McDevitt is dumber than shit, and he very well may be, but he's gotten fantastic results for WWE in a variety of cases, and that's impressive as hell to me.

 

-Chad

[Bix]

Ellie Hart won the wrongful death case for WWE by faxing McDevitt the plaintiff's entire case file after her mother left it on her desk, irreparably fucking things up.

 

Bozell blatantly defamed WWE by blatantly lying about which sponsors he got to pull out as well as the facts of the case whered Lionel Tate murdered Tiffany Eunick. And then admitted that he did. It doesn't strike me as an especially difficult case from a layman's perspective, thought the size of the settlement is impressive.

[Guest Iron Chad]

You misunderstood what I said about the Owen Hart case, Bix. WWE did settle it (I know there were Harts that fucked up family's case because other Harts and relations wanted work with WWE -- I've read Broken Harts and sheets around that time and after) for far less than it was worth because the Hart family was splintered and a bunch of them were/are just generally shitty people looking out for their own interests, Martha and Owen's kids be damned.

 

But even what WWE paid, they got reimbursed for by the harness manufacturer. That's the impressive part and Ellie faxing the family's case to McDevitt had nothing to do with the indemnification claim WWE had against the manufacturer. The Hart family had been paid and WWE was just looking for someone else to foot the bill, McDevitt got the harness folks (or, actually their liability insurer) to do it.

 

The Bozell case was impressive for the amount of the settlement, not that WWE settled. Defamation cases are hard to get much money out of barring a perfect set of facts and the perfect plaintiff. Since defamation is a tort for damage to character and reputation, and I think we agree WWE's character and reputation is less than stellar, that settlement was a helluva lick for McDevitt.

 

McDevitt may lose this case. More than likely, it will settle (I can't wait to read his motion to dismiss he's promised will BLOW THE ROOF OFF THE WRESTLING WORLD~~!!!) before the class is certified, that way every WWE wrestler, past and present, and their heirs and assigns, will be eligible to benefit (or be harmed) from any ruling. I wouldn't bet on the independent contractor agreement being blown up by this case either, though by all rights it should be blown up for the good of WWE superstars past and present.

 

-Chad

[Bob Morris]

Regarding Kanyon, I do thank Chad for reminding me about his Stern appearances. I don't follow Stern, but yes, that would count as keeping himself in the public eye.

 

But WWE is more likely to take the angle that Kanyon and company are (a) upset about being released from WWE years ago and/or ( not being an apporpriate party to file this suit becuase they aren't currently employed as WWE wrestlers, so they aren't affected by the way WWE does business.

 

While an out-of-court settlement is possible, if these guys stick to their guns like Jesse Ventura did, I'd be sweating it out a bit more if I was McDevitt/McMahon. And Lord knows Jesse is one of the frontrunners among pro wrestling folk when it comes to trying to draw attention to himself.

[sek69]

McDevitt wins cases for WWE mainly because he knows how the wrestling business works and most of the time the people going against him in court don't.

 

 

The moment he's up against someone who knows how things work (like Lesnar), they tend to settle with the quickness.

[MikeCampbell]

Wow. I forgot all about Kanyon. I thought his deal was that "Chris Kanyon" was gay, but the actual person who portrays him (blanking on his real last name) isn't.

[Bix]

I think that bit was just to generate more intrigue and he eventually said that he's completely gay.

[floyd]

EDITEE: Opps just realized I typed a bunch of stuff here that was already addressed in page 1. :-(

 

http://www.wwwebtax.com/general/independent_contractor.htm

 

Here's what I think will happen:

 

a) WWE will try to run out the clock by moving the case to different courts and losing paperwork or whatever.. Causing Raven & Co. to pay $$ in legal fees, eventually causing them to give up and live in a crack house broke and destitute.

 

B ) Raven & Co. brave the storm and the Mark Henry/Giant Khali beatings to make it to court. WWE realizing it's doom pays off Raven & Co. a unspecified large settlement out of court to avoid prosecution. They make this into an angle the following RAW, most likely involving midgits and McMahon ass.

 

********************************

 

I'm curious about the whole "Can't be fired. Independent contractors can't be fired so long as they produce a result which meets the contract specifications." thing and how it relates to Matt hardy or Dawn Marie getting released.

 

***********************************

 

Jerry McDivitt says case will be thrown out: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport...icle1620461.ece

[Bob Morris]

Jerry McDevitt for the defense..

 

Note: It's not the actual filing of the response to the lawsuit, just McDevitt with his comments.

 

EDIT: Yes, I just noticed somebody beat me to it. I didn't realize floyd had edited his post from yesterday and added the McDevitt link.

[Bix]

I love McDevitt noting that the only time that this has ever been addressed in court, that they were ruled employees, but then asserts that it doesn't matter for some reason.

[floyd]

in that Sun article, Sith Lord McDivitt says that the IRS has audited WWE many times and found nothing wrong. Anyone know how they could get away with it? Could it be that IRS didn't dig deep enough or needed some kind of lawsuit from somebody to get the ball rolling? Or could there be some kind of fine line/loop hole the WWE can get away with?

 

I realize everyone here not a lawyer. :-) But maybe someone has some experience or heard something about that argument.

 

***********************

 

Here's an interesting article on the lawsuit: http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/columns/84093

[Bob Morris]

If I'm not mistaken, when the IRS audits you, they are more interested in whether or not all those deductions you keep claiming are legitimate, or that they believe you had more income than you actually reported.

 

I would imagine the only reason they'd specifically look at the relationship of an employee or contractor is if said employee or contractor filed something in relation to a company that the company didn't report.

 

But those who know more about the law, particularly tax law, could speak to that better.

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

Wouldn't they have to pay withholding tax if the wrestlers were employees? The IRS would definitely be interested in that.

[sek69]

Right now the audits basically come down to the IRS asking if the wrestlers are employees or not, WWE saying that they aren't, and the IRS saying "well ok then". If it's ruled that they are employees after all, WWE (and the wrestlers too, probably) are in for a world of pillaging.

[Bix]

http://www.wrestlezone.com/article.php?articleid=224939806

 

World Wrestling Entertainment filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against them by former WWE wrestlers Scott Levy, Mike Sanders and Chris Klucarits seeking to reclassify professional wrestlers contracted by the company as employees. The motion, filed yesterday in the United States District Court of Connecticut, was made on the following grounds:

 

1. Their complaint failed to "state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

 

2. Their claims were barred by "applicable statues of limitations."

 

3. Their claims were a "impermissible attempt" to circumvent federal and state tax laws, with WWE claiming "neither [law] grants a private right of action."

 

4. Their claims are "preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act."

 

5. Levy, Sanders and Klucarits failed to "exhaust administrative remedies."

 

6. The trio "lack standing" to assess punitive claims on behalf of other class members (WWE contracted performers).

 

A response by the attorneys representing the former WWE talents is expected by 10/20, although they can request a motion for more time to draft their response.

Chad, can you translate the Legalese to English for us?

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

http://www.wrestlezone.com/article.php?articleid=224939806

 

World Wrestling Entertainment filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against them by former WWE wrestlers Scott Levy, Mike Sanders and Chris Klucarits seeking to reclassify professional wrestlers contracted by the company as employees. The motion, filed yesterday in the United States District Court of Connecticut, was made on the following grounds:

 

1. Their complaint failed to "state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

 

2. Their claims were barred by "applicable statues of limitations."

 

3. Their claims were a "impermissible attempt" to circumvent federal and state tax laws, with WWE claiming "neither [law] grants a private right of action."

 

4. Their claims are "preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act."

 

5. Levy, Sanders and Klucarits failed to "exhaust administrative remedies."

 

6. The trio "lack standing" to assess punitive claims on behalf of other class members (WWE contracted performers).

 

A response by the attorneys representing the former WWE talents is expected by 10/20, although they can request a motion for more time to draft their response.

Chad, can you translate the Legalese to English for us?

 

1) http://malaysia.answers.yahoo.com/question...19103828AAonKM3

 

5) http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e077.htm

 

I think those are the most confusing of the six. The others are kind of easy to figure out. But I'll defer to those who know law better than I.

[Jingus]

EDIT: nevermind.

 

Am I right in assuming that most big corporate lawsuits involve an early motion of dismissal like this? Seems like a shotgun approach where they were trying to hit every single loophole they could think of.

[Death From Above]

5. Levy, Sanders and Klucarits failed to "exhaust administrative remedies."

lol

[sek69]

EDIT: nevermind.

 

Am I right in assuming that most big corporate lawsuits involve an early motion of dismissal like this? Seems like a shotgun approach where they were trying to hit every single loophole they could think of.

 

Yeah, and what also seems to be somewhat telling is instead of their response being the legal equivalent of "these dudes are full of shit" it's more "these guys didn't follow the proper protocol to file their case" instead.

[Guest Iron Chad]

http://www.wrestlezone.com/article.php?articleid=224939806

 

World Wrestling Entertainment filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against them by former WWE wrestlers Scott Levy, Mike Sanders and Chris Klucarits seeking to reclassify professional wrestlers contracted by the company as employees. The motion, filed yesterday in the United States District Court of Connecticut, was made on the following grounds:

 

1. Their complaint failed to "state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

 

2. Their claims were barred by "applicable statues of limitations."

 

3. Their claims were a "impermissible attempt" to circumvent federal and state tax laws, with WWE claiming "neither [law] grants a private right of action."

 

4. Their claims are "preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act."

 

5. Levy, Sanders and Klucarits failed to "exhaust administrative remedies."

 

6. The trio "lack standing" to assess punitive claims on behalf of other class members (WWE contracted performers).

 

A response by the attorneys representing the former WWE talents is expected by 10/20, although they can request a motion for more time to draft their response.

Chad, can you translate the Legalese to English for us?

 

I'll try my best, the motion to dismiss seems like standard fare for big federal litigation.

 

1. Failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted means that WWE says Raven and Co. filed suit on a claim that either 1)does not exist or 2)doesn't give Raven and Co. any relief, even if they prevail on the claim. It's a standard motion to dismiss that's made it most types of litigation. It's also rarely successful. They'll probably piggyback some of their other arguments onto this general one.

 

2. Statute of limitation is a limit on how long to bring the claim. I've got no idea what the applicable statute is, but I imagine Raven's attorneys did and wouldn't've filed this suit was it outside the statute (i.e. filed too late). I don't think this is harmful to the wrestlers' claims.

 

3. WWE is claiming on this one that Raven and Co. have sued WWE under statutes and laws that provide no cause of action. That means that even if WWE violated those statutes, the statutes that WWE violated did not give Raven & Co. a basis for a lawsuit against WWE. WWE is probably right as to the IRS laws mentioned in the wrestlers' suit, but the WWE contract would be a valid basis for a suit. It may abrogate a claim or two, but probably won't kill the wrestlers' suit as a whole.

 

4. I'm not an expert on ERISA, but I know it has remedies in it that preclude or limit litigation. I'm unsure how they would apply to the basic claim that the WWE employment contract and subsequent treatment of wrestlers as contractors rather than employees. I'm thinking it has little to no effect, but I'm not positive.

 

5. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a common employer/corporate response. WWE is claiming there is a state or federal agency that Raven and Co. needed to file a complaint with before they sue. For instance, if you file a social security disability claim and it is denied, you have to proceed with an administrative hearing before you can sue social security for a denial of benefits. I don't know if there's an administrative remedy Raven and Co. needed to follow before filing suit on the employment contract. I don't think so. WWE may try to counter with the IRS Code to muddy up the waters.

 

6. This only applies to the claim of punitive damages for the class of past and current WWE contractors. Raven, Kanyon and Above Average have made a claim for punitive damages against WWE for an illegally bad employment contract and improper classification of the wrestlers as independent contractors. WWE is saying they can't claim punitive damages for the class of wrestlers as a whole, only for themselves. They may be right. Punitive damages are assessed in a case where the conduct of one party is so bad, that the bad acting party is assessed damages as punishment to deter such future conduct (like the Ford Pinto case, where Ford was assessed a butt-load of money to discourage them from making cars that explode on contact in the future). WWE is arguing they can't make a case for punitives for the whole class of wrestlers. I'd imagine if other wrestlers want to jump in and try to make a punitive claim, they can. At worst, this would limit the damages the class could recover, but probably doesn't effect the core issue of WWE's classification of the wrestlers as contractors.

 

Hope that helped.

 

-Chad

[rovert]

Raven's 2000 contract: http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/stats/p...ontractwwe1.pdf

 

Mike Sanders' 2001 contract:

http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/stats/p...ontractwwe2.pdf

 

Kanyon's 2002 contract:

http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/stats/p...ontractwwe3.pdf