Back in 2009, we blogged the fate of strippers at the ironically named King Arthur lounge in Chelsea, Mass. The club treated the women as independent contractors, but the court found that they were employees and ordered the lounge to pay back wages to the strippers. (I wonder if they were able to collect.) Today we examine a similar situation with a dramatically different outcome: the saga of LeAndra Lewis, a freelance stripper in the Carolinas.

The 19-year-old Lewis worked a network of strip clubs in North and South Carolina. She traveled from one club to another, bringing her own (skimpy) costumes and working on her own schedule. She would approach a given club, uninvited and unannounced, and ask for access to the stage. She would pay an enrollment fee (about $70) and then dance as she wished to dance, collecting tips from the customers. If a given customer really liked her work, he might "make it rain" with dollar bills. At the end of the evening, she would pay a portion of her tips to the club owner. Lewis grossed an estimated $82,000 a year, but no one knows for sure, as she did not bother filing a tax form.

In June of 2008, she found herself working in L.B. Dynasty, doing business as Boom Boom Room Studio 54 (you have to love the Studio 54 tag, adding a touch of New York glamour and some white powder?) to an otherwise marginal venue. A fight broke out while Lewis was in the club. A random bullet hit her in the stomach, causing severe internal injuries. She filed for workers' comp benefits; the club did not carry insurance (surely no surprise), so the claim reverted to the South Carolina Uninsured Fund. Her claim was denied on the basis that she was an independent contractor, not an employee of the club.

The Usual Criteria in an Unusual Setting

In its ruling on Lewis' claim, the South Carolina Appeals Court upheld the denial. They used the typical four-pronged analysis for independent contractors to determine her work status:

    1. The right or exercise of control: Lewis was free to come and go and free to dance as she chose; there were rules of behavior, but these did not constitute an employment relationship;
    2. Furnishing of equipment: the court observed that the provision of a stage, a pole and music were practical matters, as a traveling stripper would not be able to bring these to each venue;
    3. Method of payment: the club did not actually pay Lewis anything, as she herself paid a fee to dance and a portion of her earnings to the club.
  [NOTE: As we noted above, Lewis paid no taxes on her earnings, and it goes without saying the club paid no benefits on her behalf.]
    4. The right to fire: the court determined that the right to throw Lewis out for violation of club rules did not make her an employee.

Judge Short dissented from the majority opinion, noting instances in other states where strippers were determined to be employees, but he did not cite the King Arthur Lounge case. But sad as Lewis' story is, and tragic as the results for her have been, the court probably got this one right. Lewis worked as an itinerant stripper, with no real base of operations. She walked into clubs, offered her services and was given a stage on which to perform. She moved on when she felt like it. Had she been a regular at the Boom Boom Room, she could have made a stronger case. But this 19-year-old woman was very much on her own. The money was good while it lasted, but she now finds herself unable to have children and, due to her scars, unable to perform her chosen work. Like all truly independent contractors, Lewis was on her own that fateful day in 2008, and she must live with the consequences for the rest of her life.

Jon Coppelman is a principal with Lynch Ryan & Associates, a Massachusetts-based employer consulting firm. This column was reprinted with his permission from the firm's Workers' Comp Insider blog.