Pink Pony Atlanta Sued for House Fees and Wage Theft
The Pink Pony in Atlanta was recently sued by two dancers, represented by Flynn Law Firm, for wage theft and failure to pay minimum wage. According to the allegations of the complaint, Pink Pony Atlanta charges “house fees” of between 60.00 to 532.00 per shift just to work. These fees have been found to violate the Fair Labor Standards Act. It is illegal to charge workers to work. House fees are illegal.
The wage theft complaint can be found here. The specifics of the complaint are:
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs bring this Complaint against Defendants Trop, Inc. d/b/a “Pink Pony” Dennis Williams, and Michael A. Kap (collectively “Defendants”) as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiffs are former employees of TROP, INC. d/b/a “PINK PONY” DENNIS WILLIAMS (“Williams”), and MIICHAEL “MIKE” A. KAP (“KAP”).
2. Defendants herein, TROP, INC., WILLIAMS, and KAP, own and/or operate an adult entertainment club in Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia known as the “Pink Pony.”
3. Michael “Mike” Kap (“Kap”) is the owner and CEO, of Trop, Inc., the owner of the Pink Pony.
4. Denis Williams (“Williams”) is and was at all times relevant hereto the Secretary and CFO of Trop Inc., and the general manager of the Pink Pony.
5. Defendants required Plaintiffs to make certain payments to Pink Pony employees and others which caused Plaintiffs’ wages to drop below the minimum wage and applicable overtime wage, thereby constituting illegal deductions under the FLSA; these unlawful deductions were an illegal retention of earned tips under the FLSA.
6. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants charged a substantial “house fee” per shift to work at the Pony; such fees constitute illegal kickbacks under the FLSA.
7. As a result of Defendants’ violation of the FLSA, Plaintiff and the similarly situated entertainers she represents seek all unpaid minimum wages, recovery of unlawful deductions, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.
9. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because all or a substantial portion of the events forming the basis of this action occurred in this District. Defendants’ club is located in this District, and is specifically located in Fulton County, Georgia, and Plaintiff and the collective action members worked in and/or are residents of this District.
PARTIES
10. Plaintiffs were employed as entertainers by Defendants at the Pink Pony and each of them were and are “employees” as defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1).
11. Plaintiffs have consented in writing to assert claims under the FLSA. Their consents to sue are attached hereto.
12. Trop, Inc. is a Georgia Corporation with its principal place of business located at 2555 Chantilly Drive, Atlanta, Georgia, 30324. Upon information and belief, Trop, Inc., is one of the owners of, and one of the operators of, the Pink Pony. At all times mentioned herein, Trop, Inc.. was an “employer” of Plaintiffs and the collective action members within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), (g). Defendant Trop, Inc. may be served by serving its registered agent, Dennis Williams 2555 Chantilly Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30324.
13. Defendant Dennis Williams(“Williams”) is the CFO and Secretary of Trop, Inc. He is a resident of Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia. Williams acted directly or indirectly on behalf of Trop, Inc. with respect to Plaintiffs’ compensation and other terms and conditions of employment and, at all times mentioned herein was an “employer” or joint employer of Plaintiffs within the meaning of the FLSA. Defendant Williams may be served at 2555 Chantilly Drive, Atlanta, Georgia, 30324 or wherever he may be found.
14. Defendant Michael Kap is the CEO of Trop, Inc., the operations manager of Pink Pony, and, upon information and belief, a resident of Fulton County, Georgia. Kap acted directly or indirectly on behalf of Trop, Inc. with respect to Plaintiffs’ compensation and other terms and conditions of employment and, at all times mentioned herein was an “employer” or joint employer of Plaintiffs within the meaning of the FLSA. Upon information and belief, Defendant Kap may be served at 12252 Ferncreek Drive, Alpharetta, Georgia 30004 or wherever he may be found.
15. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at the Pink Pony from 2014 through January 2024. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at the Pink Pony from 2012 through October 2023.
ENTERPRISE COVERAGE
16. At all times material hereto, Trop, Inc. had an annual gross volume of sales made or business done of not less than $500,000 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level that are separately stated) within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A).
17. At all times material hereto, two or more employees of Trop, Inc. used or handled the following items (among others) that moved in interstate commerce that are necessary for performing its commercial purpose: cash, credit card machines, food, liquor, spirits, computers, office furniture, office technology, beer, and glassware.
18. At all times material hereto, Trop, Inc. had two or more “employees handling, selling or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A), including multiple employees regularly selling alcoholic beverages produced and shipped from outside Georgia.
19. At all times material hereto, Trop, Inc. was an “enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” within the meaning of FLSA § 6(a), 29 U.S.C. § 206 (a).
20. At all times material hereto, Trop, Inc. had an annual gross volume of sales made or business done of not less than $500,000.00 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level that are separately stated) within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A).
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP
21. At all times relevant hereto, Trop, Inc., owned and operated a night club under the trade name “Pink Pony” located at 1837 Corporate Blvd. NE, Brookhaven, Georgia, 30329.
22. At all times relevant hereto, the Pink Pony featured entertainment in the form of nude or semi-nude female dancing.
23. As exotic dancers at the Pink Pony, Plaintiffs were responsible for entertaining patrons by performing nude or semi-nude dances.
24. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants shared control of their employees, including Plaintiffs.
25. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs have been under the direct or indirect control of all Defendants with respect to their duties at the Pink Pony.
26. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants exercised joint control over Plaintiffs including significant decisions affecting the employment and compensation of Plaintiffs including the decisions to not pay Plaintiffs minimum wage as required by the FLSA and seize their tips in violation of the TIPA and the FLSA.
27. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants acted directly or indirectly in the interest of each other with respect to Plaintiffs
28. At all times relevant hereto, Trop, Inc., Inc., was an “employer” of Plaintiffs within the meaning of FLSA § 3(d), 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
29. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs were “employees” of Trop, Inc., Inc. within the meaning of FLSA § 3(e)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1).
30. At all times relevant hereto, Williams was an “employer” of Plaintiffs within the meaning of FLSA § 3(d), 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
31. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs were “employee[s]” of Williams within the meaning of FLSA § 3(e)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1).
32. At all times relevant hereto, Kap was an “employer” of Plaintiffs within the meaning of FLSA § 3(d), 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
33. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs were “employees” of Kap within the meaning of FLSA § 3(e)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1).
34. At all times relevant hereto, Mr. Williams was a corporate officer of Trop, Inc.
35. At all times relevant hereto, Mr. Kap was a corporate officer of Trop, Inc., Inc.
36. At all times relevant hereto, Williams was involved in the day-to-day operations of the Pink Pony and Trop, Inc., Inc.
37. At all times relevant hereto, Mr. Kap was involved in the day-to-day operations of the Pink Pony and Trop, Inc., Inc.
38. At all times relevant hereto, Williams had the power and authority to hire and fire dancers at the Pink Pony.
39. At all times relevant hereto, Williams held himself out publicly as the Vice President of Trop, Inc., and the Pink Pony; Mr. Williams is also the spokesperson for the Pink Pony and has previously served as a corporate representative for Trop, Inc., in FLSA lawsuits related to the Pink Pony.
40. At all times relevant hereto, Kap held himself out as the CEO Trop, Inc., a manager and supervisor at Pink Pony, and, at all times relevant, had the power and authority to hire and fire dancers at the Pink Pony.
41. At all times relevant hereto, Williams exercised managerial authority with respect to Plaintiffs.
42. At all times relevant hereto, Kap exercised managerial authority with respect to Plaintiffs.
43. At all times relevant hereto, Williams scheduled Plaintiffs’ working hours or supervised the scheduling of Plaintiffs’ working hours.
44. At all times relevant hereto, Kap scheduled Plaintiffs’ working hours or supervised the scheduling of Plaintiffs’ working hours.
45. At all times relevant hereto, Williams exercised managerial authority over the work rules at Pink Pony.
46. At all times relevant hereto, Kap exercised managerial authority over the work rules at Pink Pony.
47. At all times relevant hereto, Williams exercised managerial authority over Plaintiffs’ compensation.
48. At all times relevant hereto, Kap exercised managerial authority over Plaintiffs’ compensation.
ADDITIONAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
49. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as entertainers during the past three (3) years.
50. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiffs were treated as W-2 “employees” of Trop, Inc.
51. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiffs worked approximately three to five night shifts per week.
52. At all times relevant to this complaint, entertainers were required to pay a house fee for each shift worked; at the end of each shift, upon information and belief, the house fee ranged from $60.00 to $532.00 per shift depending on the amount of gross tips earned by a dancer on that shift. The payments to Defendants and their agents were paid entirely from the tip income earned by Plaintiffs.
53. Payments of the “house fee” each shift were, and are, unlawful deductions under the FLSA which violate the “free and clear” requirement of the FLSA.
54. Defendants have been repeatedly sued for requiring dancers to pay “house fees” and, upon information and belief, Defendants, their agents, and others received legal advice notifying Defendants that the Pink Pony house fee scheme violated the FLSA. Yet Defendants continued requiring dancers to pay house fees in violation of the FLSA because operating unlawfully, to Defendants, is more profitable than complying with the FLSA.
55. For each workweek in which a House Fee was paid by either Plaintiff the Plaintiff’s wages dropped below the minimum wage.
56. At all times relevant to this complaint, entertainers were required park with the Pink Pony valet and pay $10.00 per shift to park; Pink Pony dancers are not allowed to park anywhere else. Payments of the Valet fee each shift were, and are, unlawful deductions under the FLSA.
57. For each workweek in which the club Valet was paid $10.00, the entertainer’s wages dropped below the minimum wage.
58. The house fee and valet fee caused Plaintiffs’ wages to drop below the minimum wage; the various fees charged Plaintiffs violate the free and clear requirement of the FLSA and constituted illegal kick backs under the FLSA.
59. The amounts paid to Pink Pony entertainers by its customers are not included in Pink Pony, Inc.’s gross receipts or accounting records, are not taken into possession by Defendants and distributed to Pony entertainers, and Plaintiffs were required to pay Defendants, their agents, and others to work at the Pink Pony.
60. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiffs were not exempt from the maximum hour requirements of the FLSA by reason of any FLSA exemption.
61. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants did not employ Plaintiffs in a bona fide professional capacity within the meaning of 29 USC 213 (a)(1).
62. At all times material hereto, Defendants did not employ Plaintiffs in a bona fide executive capacity within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 213 (a)(1).
63. At all times material hereto, Defendants did not employ Plaintiffs in a bona fide administrative capacity within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 213(a)(1).
64. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs did not supervise two or more employees.
65. At all times material hereto, Defendants did not employ Plaintiffs in the capacity of an “outside salesman” so as to be exempt from the minimum and maximum hour requirements of 29 USC 213(a)(1).
66. Upon information and belief, either Defendants failed to maintain, or Defendants maintained inaccurate records of, house fees, time sheets, valet parking fees, and records reflecting actual hours worked or deductions from pay at the Pink Pony as to each entertainer, including Plaintiffs
67. Defendants maintain, and maintained incomplete records of time worked by Plaintiffs.
68. Defendants willfully disregard and purposefully evade record keeping requirements of the FLSA by failing to maintain proper and complete timesheets and payroll records for entertainers. Defendants’ failure to maintain records of the time worked and amounts paid as fines, tips, gratuities and service charges violate the record keeping requirements of 29 CFR Part 516
69. Defendants knew, or showed reckless disregard for the fact that their compensation policies violated the FLSA.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS: RETALIATION
70. In October of 2023, Defendants and their agents demanded and required that Plaintiff Jessica Harris pay a “house fee” amount based upon the tips she had received from customers during the shift.
71. Plaintiff Harris complained to Defendants’ agent that she refused to pay the full amount of “house fee” demanded, and, in fact, she did not pay the full amount demanded.
72. Because Plaintiff Harris complained and refused to pay the full amount of the demanded house fee, Plaintiff Jessica Harris was terminated by Defendants’ agent/Pink Pony manager Eddie Stone.
73. Plaintiff Harris was told she was being terminated for refusing to pay the full house fee required by Defendants to work at Pink Pony.
74. Prior to her termination, Plaintiff Harris had asserted her rights under the FLSA, complained about Defendants and their agent’s efforts to take money from Plaintiff, engaged in protected activity, and refused to pay the full house fee demanded. Defendants’ unlawful termination has caused Plaintiff Harris damages.
COUNT I
MINIMUM WAGE CLAIM (Claims for Violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206)
75. The allegations of paragraphs 1 – 74 above are incorporated herein by reference.
76. Each Defendant is an “employer” or joint employer of Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
77. Defendants are engaged in “commerce” and/or in the production of “goods” for “commerce” as those terms are defined in the FLSA.
78. Trop, Inc. operates an enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1), because it has employees engaged in commerce, and because its annual gross volume of sales made is more than $500,000.
79. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs were or are employees covered by the FLSA and entitled to the minimum wage protections set forth in FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206; Plaintiff consents to sue in this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and the consent to sue executed by each Plaintiff is attached to Complaint.
80. Defendants willfully disregarded and purposefully evaded record keeping requirements and failed to maintain proper, complete, and accurate timesheets and work records of Plaintiffs; as a result of Defendants’ failure to make, keep and maintain records under the FLSA, such records do not exist or insufficient to determine wages, hours, forced tip-outs, fees, fines, and other conditions of employment.
81. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the minimum wage for all hours worked in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 206.
82. At all times material hereto, Defendants required Plaintiffs to pay kickbacks to Defendants and their managers, agents and employees as described herein.
83. Defendants’ requirement that fees (including, but not limited to, house fees of, upon information and belief, $60- $520per shift, and valet fees) be paid by Plaintiffs to Defendants and their agents and employees violated the “free and clear” requirement of 29 CFR 531.35.
84. Plaintiffs are entitled to payment of minimum wages for all hours worked in an amount to be determined at a trial by jury, in accordance with FLSA § 16(b), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
85. Plaintiffs are entitled to reimbursement of all kickbacks paid to Defendants and their agents and employees, in addition to all other unpaid wages.
86. Plaintiffs are entitled to liquidated damages in an amount equal to their unpaid wages and kickbacks paid in accordance with FLSA § 16(b), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
87. As a result of their underpayment of minimum wages as alleged herein, Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs for their litigation costs, including their reasonable attorney’s fees in accordance with FLSA § 16(b); 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
88. Based upon the conduct alleged herein, Defendants knowingly, intentionally and willfully violated the FLSA by not paying Plaintiffs the minimum wage under the FLSA.
89. Throughout the relevant period of this lawsuit, there is no evidence that Defendants’ conduct that gave rise to this action was in good faith and based on reasonable grounds. In fact, at all times relevant to this action, Defendants willfully violated the FLSA knowing that their wage scheme, compensation policies, and required kickbacks were illegal.
90. Due to Defendants’ FLSA violations, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants, minimum wage compensation and an equal amount in the form of liquidated damages, as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the action, including interest, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
COUNT II
UNLAWFUL TAKING OF TIPS (Violation of 29 U.S.C. § 203)
91. The allegations of paragraphs 1 – 90 above are incorporated by reference.
92. Each Defendant is an “employer” or joint employer of Plaintiff and each collective action member within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
93. Defendants engaged in “commerce” and/or in the production of “goods” for “commerce” as those terms are defined in the FLSA.
94. Defendants operate an enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning of the FLSA because they have employees engaged in commerce and because its annual gross revenue of sales made is more than $500,000.00.
95. Under TIPA:
[a]n employer may not keep tips received by its employees for any purpose including allowing managers or supervisors to keep any portion of employees tips, regardless of whether or not it takes a tip credit.
29 U.S.C. § 203.
96. Defendants kept a portion of tips paid to Plaintiffs by Defendants’ customers in the form of fees to the club, management, supervisors, and others in violation of TIPA.
97. As a result of Defendants’ willful violation of TIPA, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover, under the FLSA and TIPA, all tips kept by the employer, any tip credit claimed by Defendants, an equal amount in liquidated damages and attorney’s fees.
COUNT III
FLSA RETALIATION AS TO PLAINTIFF HARRIS
98. The allegations of paragraphs 1 – 97 are incorporated by reference.
99. Defendants’ termination of Plaintiff Harris’ employment in October of 2023 was motivated by Plaintiff Harris’ assertion of her rights under the FLSA by way of complaining about Defendants’ illegal house fee and was further motived by Plaintiff Harris’ refusal to pay the demanded amount of house fee to the Defendants. Because Plaintiff refused to pay the full amount of house fee demanded, and because the charging of a house fee by Pink Pony and the Defendants is and was illegal, Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated.
100. Defendants’ termination of Plaintiff Harris’ employment constitutes a violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of the FLSA, 29 § U.S.C. 215(a)(3).
101. As a result of Defendants’ retaliatory discharge, Plaintiff was, and has been, damaged, and has suffered compensatory damages. Plaintiff is entitled to all legal relief and damages (including liquidated damages) allowed by law for Defendants’ retaliatory discharge.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court grant relief as follows:
- As to Count I award Plaintiffs judgment for wages at the minimum rate, including the recovery of all payments reducing wages below the minimum wage, as well as liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees as provided for under the FLSA, against the Defendants jointly and severally;
- That Plaintiffs be awarded the “kickbacks” charged by Defendants in violation of the FLSA and an additional like amount in liquidated damages, against the Defendants jointly and severally;
- As to Count II award Plaintiffs judgment for the recovery of all tips kept by the employers, an equal amount in liquidated damages and reasonable attorney’s fees under the FLSA and TIPA against the Defendants jointly and severally;
- As to Count III, award Plaintiff Jessica Harris all damages allowed by law, including back pay, emotional distress damages, and liquidated damages, to fully compensate Plaintiff Harris for Defendants’ retaliatory discharge;
- Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of this action, including expert fees;
- Grant Plaintiffs a jury trial on all issues so triable; and
- Award Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
