Raven files a lawsuit against the WWE

[Noah Fentz 0]

...You honestly listed "outcomes" against my point? It's a worked event. Of course the promoter makes that decision. I mean...really? Some spots I'll give you but outcomes? You honestly thought I meant that the workers decide who wins? Really?

 

And anyway, your listed 90% control of lay out versus *NONE* in WWE. Your average midcarder in WWE has no say over how their match is laid out. That's what agents do, with instructions handed down by the writers. Every single aspect of their work is determined by WWE.

 

They are not Independent Contractors.

 

Hell no, that's not what I thought you meant, but in recent experience around here, I thought it best to be as thorough as possible.

 

And I would say that since there are several more tax breaks(such as health care) when paid my an employer, the IRS gets at least as much when taxes are paid by independent contractors.

 

Not even close. As independent contractors, they pay all their own taxes, the entity that employs them pays zero.

 

Generally, you must withhold income taxes, withhold and pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, and pay unemployment tax on wages paid to an employee. You do not generally have to withhold or pay any taxes on payments to independent contractors.

When paying an employee, it costs an employer an additional 15% in taxes, plus unemployment, plus workers' compensation. Image the money the IRS would have received, if WWE personalities were classified as employees.

[Joseph2112 0]

...You honestly listed "outcomes" against my point? It's a worked event. Of course the promoter makes that decision. I mean...really? Some spots I'll give you but outcomes? You honestly thought I meant that the workers decide who wins? Really?

 

And anyway, your listed 90% control of lay out versus *NONE* in WWE. Your average midcarder in WWE has no say over how their match is laid out. That's what agents do, with instructions handed down by the writers. Every single aspect of their work is determined by WWE.

 

They are not Independent Contractors.

 

Hell no, that's not what I thought you meant, but in recent experience around here, I thought it best to be as thorough as possible.

 

And I would say that since there are several more tax breaks(such as health care) when paid my an employer, the IRS gets at least as much when taxes are paid by independent contractors.

 

Not even close. As independent contractors, they pay all their own taxes, the entity that employs them pays zero.

 

Generally, you must withhold income taxes, withhold and pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, and pay unemployment tax on wages paid to an employee. You do not generally have to withhold or pay any taxes on payments to independent contractors.

When paying an employee, it costs an employer an additional 15% in taxes, plus unemployment, plus workers' compensation. Image the money the IRS would have received, if WWE personalities were classified as employees.

The only caviat to what you are saying here is that the employer does not pay the tax, the independent contractor does. So it is nearly a wash, but the more I read about it, the more complicated it gets. It's not that simple. Who would have thought I would have spent the last 30 minutes reading up on tax codes.

[Noah Fentz 0]

 

Generally, you must withhold income taxes, withhold and pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, and pay unemployment tax on wages paid to an employee. You do not generally have to withhold or pay any taxes on payments to independent contractors.

When paying an employee, it costs an employer an additional 15% in taxes, plus unemployment, plus workers' compensation. Image the money the IRS would have received, if WWE personalities were classified as employees.

The only caviat to what you are saying here is that the employer does not pay the tax, the independent contractor does. So it is nearly a wash, but the more I read about it, the more complicated it gets. It's not that simple. Who would have thought I would have spent the last 30 minutes reading up on tax codes.

 

The major point is the WWE doesn't pay the 15% tax an employer would pay.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

What's the debate about? The WWE already considers their workers independent contractors. This is why the lawsuit is occurring, to make the WWE recognize their workers as employees or somehow change how they draw up contracts in the future. The WWE is always on the lookout on how to shave any possible expenses, including misrepresenting their employees as independent contractors so they don't have to pay that 15% as you say, Noah Fentz.

[Noah Fentz 0]

The debate is whether or not what the WWE is doing right now is legal.

 

I believe it is, and I don't think there's a damn thing anyone can do about it. If the IRS hasn't already challenged the multi-millions it would have collected if the workers were employees, then I see no possibility of a valid argument.

[Joseph2112 0]

 

Generally, you must withhold income taxes, withhold and pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, and pay unemployment tax on wages paid to an employee. You do not generally have to withhold or pay any taxes on payments to independent contractors.

When paying an employee, it costs an employer an additional 15% in taxes, plus unemployment, plus workers' compensation. Image the money the IRS would have received, if WWE personalities were classified as employees.

The only caviat to what you are saying here is that the employer does not pay the tax, the independent contractor does. So it is nearly a wash, but the more I read about it, the more complicated it gets. It's not that simple. Who would have thought I would have spent the last 30 minutes reading up on tax codes.

 

The major point is the WWE doesn't pay the 15% tax an employer would pay.

 

The WWE doesn't pay it you are correct. The worker pays it. It all comes out in the wash and I gaurantee you it is not the "multi-millions" you allude to. The more I read about this the more I think the WWE has very shaky ground to defend here.

[Noah Fentz 0]

The workers pay their own tax, yes, but the 15% the WWE would have paid is not paid, since they are independent contractors.

 

So, take 15% of all workers' wages over just the past 10 years and you'll have multi-millions.

 

The 15% employers pay is above-and-beyond the independent contractors/employees taxes. It's not a wash at all.

[Joseph2112 0]

The workers pay their own tax, yes, but the 15% the WWE would have paid is not paid, since they are independent contractors.

 

So, take 15% of all workers' wages over just the past 10 years and you'll have multi-millions.

 

The 15% employers pay is above-and-beyond the independent contractors/employees taxes. It's not a wash at all.

 

Employees split the burden for their Social Security taxes evenly with their employers; contractors are responsible for the whole load.

 

Contractors are also responsible for their health insurance and retirement savings.

 

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/...4/bz/bz14a.html

 

This is as simple as I can find it. There is no mythical 15%. I gaurantee you cannot source that claim.

[Noah Fentz 0]

The workers pay their own tax, yes, but the 15% the WWE would have paid is not paid, since they are independent contractors.

 

So, take 15% of all workers' wages over just the past 10 years and you'll have multi-millions.

 

The 15% employers pay is above-and-beyond the independent contractors/employees taxes. It's not a wash at all.

 

Employees split the burden for their Social Security taxes evenly with their employers; contractors are responsible for the whole load.

 

Contractors are also responsible for their health insurance and retirement savings.

 

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/...4/bz/bz14a.html

 

This is as simple as I can find it. There is no mythical 15%. I gaurantee you cannot source that claim.

 

Do you own a business?

 

I can tell you, I do. I pay just over 15% per employee just to employ them. Then pay unemployment insurance and workers' comp. You want a source? How about my weekly payroll...will that work for you?

 

Do all of you just read shit online and suddenly you're an expert?! And, no, you don't "split" income taxes evenly. Your source is bunk. 2004? C'mon! What did you do Google it? I can tell you when I sign payroll checks EXACTLY how this works.

 

[Joseph2112 0]

The workers pay their own tax, yes, but the 15% the WWE would have paid is not paid, since they are independent contractors.

 

So, take 15% of all workers' wages over just the past 10 years and you'll have multi-millions.

 

The 15% employers pay is above-and-beyond the independent contractors/employees taxes. It's not a wash at all.

 

Employees split the burden for their Social Security taxes evenly with their employers; contractors are responsible for the whole load.

 

Contractors are also responsible for their health insurance and retirement savings.

 

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/...4/bz/bz14a.html

 

This is as simple as I can find it. There is no mythical 15%. I gaurantee you cannot source that claim.

 

Do you own a business?

 

I can tell you, I do. I pay just over 15% per employee just to employ them. Then pay unemployment insurance and workers' comp. You want a source? How about my weekly payroll...will that work for you?

 

Do all of you just read shit online and suddenly you're an expert?! And, no, you don't "split" income taxes evenly. Your source is bunk. 2004? C'mon! What did you do Google it? I can tell you when I sign payroll checks EXACTLY how this works.

Then surely you know your 15% is all the taxes you speak of, that are passed on to an independent contractor if you hire them. I googled it, and what came up was www.irs.gov. I am going to go out on a limb and say that thats a pretty reliable source.

[Noah Fentz 0]

There is no mythical 15%. I gaurantee you cannot source that claim.

 

Interesting how the mythical appears...perhaps you should visit Loch Ness.

 

Contractors are also responsible for their health insurance and retirement savings.

 

Isn't everyone? Employees included.

 

If you were an independent contractor, you would take into account the 15%, adjust your fees, and the employer would pay for it, anyway. That's just how business works.

 

Back on-topic...IMO, a suit like this against the WWE won't get very far.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Hey Noah, maybe it's just me, but Pro Wrestling isn't worth yelling at somebody over, and I'm saying this as a fan.

[Noah Fentz 0]

I agree, and I didn't mean to come off like I was yelling, sorry.

[Enigma 0]

Eric Bischoff has chimed in with his thoughts on the lawsuit.

 

How much control is too much?

 

That is a question that executives within, and shareholders of WWE, my soon be thinking about as they try to get to sleep at night.

 

Before I go too far into my perspective on the recent revelation that a number of former WWE contracted performers have filed suit challenging their previous status as independent contractors, allow me to share my thoughts regarding litigation in general:

 

I despise it.

 

As I have stated in a previous blog (“Never Say Never”), Shakespeare may have been on to something when he suggested in Henry VI that we “kill all the lawyers”. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think all lawyers are scumbags, and I don’t believe that all lawsuits are frivolous and without merit.

 

But unfortunately all too many lawsuits and the tactics of the lawyers/’firms and clients involved, create collateral damage to righteous claims. This damage can range from negative public opinion (and tainted jury pools), to low-rent law firms that troll for potential class action litigants on late night local cable television like hookers on a street corner, to a clogged up judicial system that forces legitimate claims to be dragged into protracted legal battles and are determined not by case law or a jury, but by a plaintiffs or a defendants financial ability to run a legal marathon.

 

Case in point: The recent lawsuit challenging WWE's independent contractor vs employee designation.

 

This is a complex issue and it is going to be a very interesting situation to watch un-fold as it may have profound impact on WWE and TNA.

 

Back in 1998, when the full impact of the Turner/Time Warner merger began to manifest itself as a power grabbing corporate orgy of gamesmanship, one of the issues raised by some executives that tried previously (and unsuccessfully thanks to Ted’s vision and the performance of WCW at the time) to divest the Turner Broadcasting portfolio of the WCW division, was the concern over the independent contractor/employee status of WCW’s talent. The argument as I remember hearing it (I wasn’t invited to the meetings) was that the exposure to Turner/Time Warner due to a potential adverse IRS determination regarding this issue could have resulted in fines, increased cost of business going forward, and a hit to TWX stock as a result.

 

Fast-forward 10 years later. WWE is now a publicly traded company. It is responsible to its shareholders, and therefore must react to market conditions and influences much differently than when it was a privately held company. While the Chairman can stack the deck with a Board of Directors and executive management team that looks more like a friends and family reunion than anything else, should the IRS determine that WWE’s contracted talent are employees and not independent contractors, there is the potential for significant fines, expenses and cost of doing business on a go-forward basis that could have a serious negative impact on WWE stock.

 

How bad you ask? I am not an attorney or an employment tax expert, but I did get my ass kicked once by the IRS back in the late 80’s/early 90’s and I do know that they lack anything that resembles a sense of humor.

 

When the IRS determines that one didn’t pay what one should have paid in taxes, they tend to grab a calculator that has it’s own unique decimal system, a calendar, and a team of lawyers looking for press and attention.

 

Example?

 

If, as a result of this recent lawsuit, the IRS determines that WWE’s contract talent are employees and NOT independent contractors, that means that in addition to many other expenses relating to the cost of accounting changes, WWE will be required to contribute approximately 7.5% of the salaries paid to its newly minted talent/employees to OASDI (Old Age and Survivors Disability Insurance).

 

My guess is that this increased cost of doing business going forward could be easily absorbed.

 

But what if, the IRS grabs their calculators, calendars, and teams of lawyers looking for press and attention and decides to go back 3, 5, 10 years or whatever the statute of limitations is and calculates monies due plus penalties and interest on the fees paid to former employees?

 

Scary.

 

I attempt to write my blogs in such a way that the end hangs on the beginning so I will close with these thoughts:

 

On one hand, every talent that performed with WWE knew exactly what they were getting into when they signed on. Its not as if there was some master plan that was designed to take advantage of them. My guess is that they are in a desperate financial situation and found some equally desperate lawyer to take a run at this issue in the hopes of collecting a payday.

 

But on the other, Vince McMahon’s mandate for absolute control of everything from, finishes, the words that he puts in the mouths of his announcers and performers, to dress codes for talent flying to and from an event may come back to haunt him.

 

I predict that any number of previously contracted talent and scum swilling lawyers will attempt to jump on the bandwagon in the hopes of augmenting their incomes in some way either real or imagined.

 

And if there is enough free publicity involved, look for Jesse Ventura to lead the charge!

 

 

For the sake of discussion, and as a frame of reference, here is an example of a list of guidelines that the IRS uses to attempt to determine employee/independent contractor status:

 

 

1. Instructions

 

Employees comply with instructions about when, where, and how work is to be performed.

Contractors set their own hours and do the job in their own way.

 

2. Training

 

Employees are trained to perform services in a particular way. They are required to take correspondence courses and attend meetings. Other methods also indicate that the employer wants the services performed in a particular way.

Contractors use their own methods and receive no training from the purchaser of their services

.

3. Integration

 

Services of an employee are merged into the business. Success and continuation of the business depends upon these services. The employer coordinates work with that of others.

The success and continuation of the business aren’t dependent on services provided by a contractor.

4. Services Rendered Personally

 

Services must be rendered personally. An employee does not engage other people to do the work.

Contractors are able to assign their own workers to do the job.

5. Hiring, Supervising, Paying

 

An employee hires, supervises and pays workers at the direction of the employer (i.e.: acts as foreman or representative of the employer).

Contractors hire, supervise and pay the other workers as the result of a contract. A contractor agrees to provide materials and labor and is responsible for the results.

 

6. Continuing Relationship

 

An employee continues to work for the same person year after year.

Contractors are hired to do one job. There is no continuous relationship

.

7. Set Hours of Work

 

The employer sets an employee’s hours and days.

Contractors are masters of their own time.

 

8. Full Time Required

 

An employee normally works full time for an employer.

Contractors are free to work when and for whom they choose.

 

9. Doing Work on Employer’s Premises

 

Employees work on the premises of an employer; or on a route, or at a site, designated by the employer.

Contractors work off an employer’s premises and use their own offices, desks, and telephones.

10. Order or Sequence Set

 

An employee performs services in the order or sequence set by the employer. Salespersons report to the office at specified times, follow-up on leads, and perform certain tasks at certain times.

 

 

Services are performed at a contractor’s own pace. Salespersons work their own schedules and usually have their own offices.

11. Oral or Written Reports

 

Employees are required to submit regular oral or written reports to the employer.

Contractors submit no reports.

 

12. Payment by Hour, Week, Month

 

Employees are paid by the employer in regular amounts at stated intervals.

A contractor is paid by the job on a straight commission.

 

13. Payment of Business and/or Travel Expenses

 

The employer pays employees’ business and/or travel expenses.

Contractors take care of their own expenses and are accountable only to themselves for expenses.

 

14. Furnishing of Tools, Materials

 

An employer furnishes tools, materials, etc.

Contractors furnish their own tools, etc.

 

15. Significant Investment

 

An employee has no significant investment in the facilities used to perform services.

A contractor has a real, essential and significant investment.

 

16. Realization of Profit or Loss

 

An employee cannot realize a profit or loss by making good or bad decisions.

Contractors can realize a profit or suffer a loss as a result of their services or decisions.

 

17. Working for More than One Firm at a Time

 

An employee usually works for one employer at a time.

An independent contractor works for a number of persons or firms at the same time.

 

18. Making Services Available to the General Public

 

An employee does not make services available to the general public.

Contractors have their own offices and assistants. The hold businesses licenses are listed in business directories, maintain business telephones, and otherwise generally make their services available to the public.

19. Right to Fire

 

 

An employee can be discharged at any time.

Contractors cannot be fired so long as product results meet contract specifications.

 

20. Right to Quit

Employees can quit their jobs at any time without incurring liability.

Contractors agree to complete a specific job and are responsible for satisfactory completion; or they are legally obligated to make good for any failure.

 

 

Above Summary is reprinted from IRS Tax Facts, January 1992

 

As you can see, its not a cut and dry issue on all points, and it is possible that this list has been amended since published. Either way, there are more than enough fine lines to be interpreted and argued that I would be surprised if this does not become a major issue.

[JPopStarKami 0]

Eric Bischoff has chimed in with his thoughts on the lawsuit.

 

For the sake of discussion, and as a frame of reference, here is an example of a list of guidelines that the IRS uses to attempt to determine employee/independent contractor status:

 

 

1. Instructions

 

Employees comply with instructions about when, where, and how work is to be performed.

Contractors set their own hours and do the job in their own way.

 

2. Training

 

Employees are trained to perform services in a particular way. They are required to take correspondence courses and attend meetings. Other methods also indicate that the employer wants the services performed in a particular way.

Contractors use their own methods and receive no training from the purchaser of their services

.

3. Integration

 

Services of an employee are merged into the business. Success and continuation of the business depends upon these services. The employer coordinates work with that of others.

The success and continuation of the business aren’t dependent on services provided by a contractor.

4. Services Rendered Personally

 

Services must be rendered personally. An employee does not engage other people to do the work.

Contractors are able to assign their own workers to do the job.

5. Hiring, Supervising, Paying

 

An employee hires, supervises and pays workers at the direction of the employer (i.e.: acts as foreman or representative of the employer).

Contractors hire, supervise and pay the other workers as the result of a contract. A contractor agrees to provide materials and labor and is responsible for the results.

 

6. Continuing Relationship

 

An employee continues to work for the same person year after year.

Contractors are hired to do one job. There is no continuous relationship

.

7. Set Hours of Work

 

The employer sets an employee’s hours and days.

Contractors are masters of their own time.

 

8. Full Time Required

 

An employee normally works full time for an employer.

Contractors are free to work when and for whom they choose.

 

9. Doing Work on Employer’s Premises

 

Employees work on the premises of an employer; or on a route, or at a site, designated by the employer.

Contractors work off an employer’s premises and use their own offices, desks, and telephones.

10. Order or Sequence Set

 

An employee performs services in the order or sequence set by the employer. Salespersons report to the office at specified times, follow-up on leads, and perform certain tasks at certain times.

 

 

Services are performed at a contractor’s own pace. Salespersons work their own schedules and usually have their own offices.

11. Oral or Written Reports

 

Employees are required to submit regular oral or written reports to the employer.

Contractors submit no reports.

 

12. Payment by Hour, Week, Month

 

Employees are paid by the employer in regular amounts at stated intervals.

A contractor is paid by the job on a straight commission.

 

13. Payment of Business and/or Travel Expenses

 

The employer pays employees’ business and/or travel expenses.

Contractors take care of their own expenses and are accountable only to themselves for expenses.

 

14. Furnishing of Tools, Materials

 

An employer furnishes tools, materials, etc.

Contractors furnish their own tools, etc.

 

15. Significant Investment

 

An employee has no significant investment in the facilities used to perform services.

A contractor has a real, essential and significant investment.

 

16. Realization of Profit or Loss

 

An employee cannot realize a profit or loss by making good or bad decisions.

Contractors can realize a profit or suffer a loss as a result of their services or decisions.

 

17. Working for More than One Firm at a Time

 

An employee usually works for one employer at a time.

An independent contractor works for a number of persons or firms at the same time.

 

18. Making Services Available to the General Public

 

An employee does not make services available to the general public.

Contractors have their own offices and assistants. The hold businesses licenses are listed in business directories, maintain business telephones, and otherwise generally make their services available to the public.

19. Right to Fire

 

 

An employee can be discharged at any time.

Contractors cannot be fired so long as product results meet contract specifications.

 

20. Right to Quit

Employees can quit their jobs at any time without incurring liability.

Contractors agree to complete a specific job and are responsible for satisfactory completion; or they are legally obligated to make good for any failure.

 

 

Above Summary is reprinted from IRS Tax Facts, January 1992

 

As you can see, its not a cut and dry issue on all points, and it is possible that this list has been amended since published. Either way, there are more than enough fine lines to be interpreted and argued that I would be surprised if this does not become a major issue.

 

Based off of this list, I'd say WWE is going to lose this one.

[RedJed 0]

Some proverbial food for thought here......this was cut from the latest Observer....

 

"For what this is worth, the California Supreme Court this past week has ruled that non-compete clauses are illegal in a unanimous decision. Basically, when a contract expires, an employee can work for a competitor of the company he had worked for on the very next day. “An employer cannot by contract restrain a former employee from engaging in his or her profession, trade or business,” wrote Justice Ming Chin in the ruling. The only limitation is an employee can’t use confidential information or steal trade secrets if moving to a competitor."

 

Also, I'd like to chime in my thoughts on the 15% percent deal that some people are not buying........as a small business owner myself (I own and operate an arts and entertaiment magazine), those numbers are pretty much true. If nobody believe me or Noah on that fact, I suggest getting a book on starting up your own business. That, in itself, is why I have never hired anyone on as an actual employee.....its costly for the business itself. And since all of the people that work for me are sales reps and they work on a strictly commission basis, it makes sense to have them as independant contractors. The way the WWE does things, its not legal to me, just simply because of the non-compete clauses implimented in the agreement with the workers. I tried doing such a thing (have my reps sign a non-compete clause) when there was another arts and entertainment magazine in town and I was concerned of reps either leaving my company and going to theirs, bringing their "leads" with them, but I was told by a local attorney that, essentially, I have no case to do so and could be potentially in violation of treating a person as an employee. So either I had to give them employee status (ie having their taxes taken off each check, etc) or else pull back on the heavy handed nature of the agreement I tried to get them to sign.

 

What ended up happening was that I was still able to have them sign an agreement, but the only thing in the contract I was legally able to do was have it so that if one of my reps would leave, they just couldn't go to another publication and tell them, for instance, how much our ad rates were, what the commission rate was that i was giving them, etc. But I couldn't prevent them from really contacting the same businesses they established a business relationship with.

 

Sorry if I'm rambling, but the bottom line is that the reality of having independant contractors who work for you really gives the company no legitimate "control" over them for the most part. Its a give and take deal......if you have no employees, its less hassle for the business in that you don't have to "pay" for them to be an employee, but you risk those contractors pretty much doing as they wish with little to no control.

[troy_y2jfan 0]

Not to bore anyone, but just to clarify. I am a CPA, and essentially, the IRS gets the same amount of tax whether they are classified as independent contractors or employees. If they are employees, the 15% is 7.65% of social security/medicare that would be withheld, plus a 7.65% match, which is company paid. If they are idependent contractors, the IRS still gets that 15%, but it is all paid by the contractors. Basically, the IRS gets their money either way.

 

Where it would make a bigger difference (at least it would here in Ohio) is that the WWE is avoiding paying state unemployment and workers compensation (if they would be subject. I am not familiar with the laws in each state). Actually, if the workers are classified as employees, that would open a whole can of worms with the WWE having to worry about paying payroll taxes to various states.

 

But, bottom line, the IRS is getting its money either way.

[Thanks for the Fish 0]

Wwe allows all recently released workers to immediately work the indies now (Delaney worked last night), though can't appear on television or DVD sales if they want to collect their 90-days pay.

[Perfection 0]

Based off of this list, I'd say WWE is going to lose this one.

 

I totally agree. I mean you read that and it's painfully obvious wrestlers easily fall more into the category of employees rather than independent contractors. I'm actually surprised it has taken this long for someone to challenge it and that the IRS or whoever has not already taken the wwe to task for it.

[milliondollarchamp 0]

To update you on Raven's (Scott Levy's) lawsuit against the WWE, you can now add Mike Sanders and Christopher Klucsarits (Kanyon) to the mix. They are challenging the independent contractor status of WWE wrestlers.

 

The three have filed the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and "all other similarly-situated individuals". The WWE have requested and received an extension until September 29th, 2008 to respond.

 

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

Yeah, there's info at http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/ I believe.

 

The write-up about this in today's F4W newsletter is pretty good.

[Hawk 34 0]

I called Kanyon being involved with this. Wasn't expecting Mike Sanders though.

[TheFranchise 0]

Mike Sanders seems somewhat out of left field.

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

People are trying to figure out what Sanders has to gain in this - the 6 year statute for any potential backpayments will long since have expired by the time this gets into court. Raven will also be at 6 years in 2009 as well. It's a noble cause, I suppose.

[JPopStarKami 0]

source: pwinsider.com

 

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.

 

This better not get dismissed...

[Scroby 0]

Under the limited knowledge I have of employee versus independent contractor, there is no way WWE fits that bill.

 

Indy wrestling, even ROH, yes, but not in WWE.

 

IC's are told the job, when to do it, and so on but are 100% up to their own decision as for how to do it, or when to look for work. It's their decision to work. If they don't wish to, they don't have to. and they have autonomy on HOW to handle the work. An indy wrestler can build their match anyway they want.

 

In WWE, not only are you told what the job is, you are told to extreme lengths how to do it. How to build your match. What spots. What to say in a promo down to every little detail. Very few people in WWE have *ANY* say over the work they do at all. And if you try to not work, one of the primary benefits of an IC? Yeah, that doesn't fly at all.

 

Sorry, man, but that is totally untrue. In my indy, and every indy I worked with, the workers have 90% control over their match, but the spots and outcomes are the promoters' call. If I wanted a worker to gig, he'd gig. Granted, they could refuse, but they wouldn't be working the next show.

So how many people did you lose because they didn't gig for you? That's just bad business. It's one thing if you would like someone to bleed for the match, but it should be up to that wrestler on how he or she bleeds for the match.

 

I know if you wanted me to gig, I'd want you to pay me a little extra and if you refused and still wanted me to gig or I wouldn't work the next show, I'd pack up my shit and as soon as my song hit, I'd walk out the front door.

 

What you're talking about Noah, when it comes to the Indies and the WWE are really two different things. For the most part, the Indies are not promotions who contract their wrestlers and I doubt your promotion used contracts. A indy wrestler working freelance for a indy promotion can refuse to not gig if they want to. What are you gonna do? Throw a fit?

 

"I wanted Wrestler A to bleed so I wanted him to gig, he said he would get it done by doing it hard way because he doesn't gig, but I told him he had to gig so he walked out."

 

That absolutely makes no sense at all and other wrestlers or promoters would laugh at your dumbass for trying to force a wrestler to bleed by gigging.

 

As far as the lawsuit goes, I'm a bit confused on something. What is Raven actually going after? Is he going after money he feels that he was owed for not working for 60 or 90 days after he was released? Or is he going after the WWE because they didn't give benefits? Or both?

[dubq 0]

Enough insider indy wrestling language.. wtf is "gig" ?

[Thanks for the Fish 0]

Enough insider indy wrestling language.. wtf is "gig" ?

 

Blading; cutting yourself on the forehead to bleed

[dubq 0]

What's the significance of the term "gig" though? I mean, wouldn't you normally just say "blade" or is that too smarkish of a term now?

[bob_barron 0]

Gig is a fairly standard wrestling term