A federal judge has ruled exotic dancers seeking to press a class action against the Scores Chicago Gentleman’s Club in suburban Stone Park can’t use the Illinois Gender Violence Act to defeat arbitration agreements in their employment contracts.
Angelica Rattunde sued Scores, alleging it underpaid workers according to state and federal labor laws. But the company asked U.S. District Judge Sunil Harjani to invoke the Federal Arbitration Act, which he did in a ruling in October.
Harjani opened his analysis by noting the Illinois Gender Violence Act “has generally been inapplicable to claims against a corporate entity,” and as such requested further briefings on that topic. Rattunde said the initial draft of the law applied to corporations and also noted an employer amendment took effect Jan. 1, 2024, arguing it should apply retroactively.
Those arguments failed, Harjani said, because there is conflicting legal precedent concerning whether “a corporation could act personally for purposes of civil liability” under the law. He also noted that Rattunde said she worked at Scores in 2016 and 2017, then from 2019 through February 2023, meaning she can’t invoke the amendment that took effect Jan. 1, 2024, and there is no language in that amendment inviting retroactive application.
Further, the amendment adds new duties on employers to supervise, train and monitor employees and to investigate complaints. Harjani said those new legal consequences further work against retroactive application, rejecting Rattunde’s arguments that lawmakers debating the amendment discussed ambiguity about which entities could be sued.
But the amendment, Harjani wrote, “did not merely clarify an existing ambiguity but added an entire section which delineated the extent of employer liability … it would be manifestly unjust to apply this statute retroactively.”
As such, Harjani dismissed from the complaint, with prejudice, the allegation of violating the Gender Violence Act. That left remaining three other counts and Scores’ position the Federal Arbitration Act required him to send those issues to arbitration.
Rattunde said the contracts she signed “are procedurally unconscionable because there was no meaningful opportunity to reject or review the agreements,” Harjani wrote, in that she wasn’t allowed to bring documents home for review and she was told where to sign. But he said she didn’t allege Scores “deprived her of normal quality of mind or ability to exercise free will,” noting she could’ve taken an hour to read the contracts, asked questions or opted to work elsewhere.
“The contracts were written in English (plaintiff’s native language), in normal size font, with headings. Important provisions, such as the arbitration agreement, were boldfaced to draw a reader’s attention,” Harjani wrote. “The five agreements combined total only seven pages and included options for plaintiff to ‘Accept’ or ‘Reject’ certain provisions, such as the arbitration provision and the class action waiver.”
Although Rattunde said she didn’t understand she’d waived her right to a jury trial until after meeting with an attorney, Harjani explained, parties aren’t obligated to explain such provisions and a signature is binding regardless of whether a worker read the language.
Harjani further clarified the contracts aren’t unconscionable on substantive grounds, which would require finding them to be inordinately one-sided. He said the agreements’ provisions for which party pays what costs of arbitration are balanced, specifically pointing out the active firm, AAA Arbitration, has rules for reducing administrative fees in response to demonstrated economic hardship.
He also rejected Rattunde’s arguments insisting the class action waiver is unconscionable because she had a meaningful opportunity to reject that specific clause, both at the initial signing and during annual resigning.
With the remaining three counts sent to arbitration, Harjani stayed the case pending the outcome of that proceeding rather than dismiss the complaint outright. He also addressed the motions of opt-in consent form signatories, saying Rattunde’s motion for class certification is moot while also rejecting Scores’ request to compel arbitration for the additional workers.
Rattunde is represented by Bradley Manewith, of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, Northbrook. The firm did not respond to a request for comment.