Connecticut Employment Law Blog Insight on Labor & Employment Developments for Connecticut Businesses

Wrestlers Claim They Are Employees, not Independent Contractors In Suit Against WWE

Posted in Litigation

As I’ve cross-posted over at Overlawyered.com today, three wrestlers have sued Connecticut-based World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.courtesy Wikipedia commons - Scott Levy (WWE) claiming that they have been improperly classified as "independent contractors" and not employees.

On Friday, WWE removed the lawsuit to federal court from state court claiming that federal questions are implicated in what would otherwise seem to be a "breach of contract" claim.  (You can read the removal papers here.) What federal questions? Well, federal employment tax questions for one.

But the interesting part of the case is not the removal papers, but the underlying lawsuit itself. (You can download the complaint here.) The wrestlers – who are seeking class-action status — claim that they were required to sign a "booking contract" that specified the terms of their engagement such as their training regiment, costumes, and — to the surprise of no one — the "outcome of each match".  They claim that they were akin to "employees" and should have been paid as such.  WWE denied the allegations in a 10-Q filing late last month.

While the employees are seeking damages, typically, the penalty for employers is to pay the employment taxes of the employees with some penalties.  It’s unclear here what else the wrestlers are actually seeking.  The case has been assigned to Senior Judge Peter Dorsey.

The proper classification of workers has been a thorny issue for employers, going back to the days of the landmark Microsoft lawsuit from the late ’90s.    As an employer, you can get a headstart on the issue by going to the IRS website which has lots of commentary and resources on the subject. 

  • David Townsend

    Surely there is only one way to settle this matter. A ‘Hell in the Cell’ with a ladders and tables stipulation between the opposing lawyers. I, for one, would pay good money to see that :-)

  • http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/2008/08/articles/decisions-and-rulings/quick-takes-followup-on-wrestler-lawsuit-guest-post-on-train-jumping/index.html Connecticut Employment Law Blog

    Quick Takes: Followup on Wrestler Lawsuit; Guest Post on Train Jumping,

    With lots of little things going up, it’s time to followup on a few topics we’ve covered in the last few days and some other notable posts from around the web. First up, my post on the WWE Wrestlers was…

  • Nick F.

    WWE might be screwed on this one. They’ve been claiming their talent are independent contractors for decades, but how they are employed, they clearly are not. I mean all you have to look is at the fact that they wrestle exclusively for WWE and WWE controls when and where they can and cannot appear.
    I don’t know how the IRS hasn’t caught this in the numerous times they’ve audited the place. Maybe someone’s a fan.

  • http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/2008/09/articles/decisions-and-rulings/quick-updates-wwe-lawsuit-transgender-litigation-verdicts-on-the-rise-religious-discrimination-and-a-special-thanks/index.html Connecticut Employment Law Blog

    QUICK UPDATES: WWE Lawsuit, Transgender Litigation, Verdicts on the Rise, Religious Discrimination, and a Special Thanks

    The Jewish holidays starting tonight encourage reflection. So, it seems particularly appropriate to do some quick updates on earlier posts: The lawsuit against WWE by three wrestlers continues to move very slowly. Early press reports by another source …

  • http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/2008/10/articles/decisions-and-rulings/wwe-lawsuit-update-wwe-files-motion-to-dismiss-and-discloses-booking-contracts-of-wrestlers/index.html Connecticut Employment Law Blog

    WWE Lawsuit Update: WWE Files Motion to Dismiss and Discloses Booking Contracts of Wrestlers

    As expected, WWE filed its motion to dismiss (download here) the lawsuit brought by three wrestlers who claimed that they were improperly classified as "independent contractors" and not employees. (For prior blog coverage, see prior posts her…