ALEXIS DEGIDIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee,
CRAZY HORSE SALOON AND RESTAURANT INC, d/b/a Thee New Dollhouse, Defendant-Appellant, and JOSEPH B. HARGADON, Third Party Defendant.
Argued: December 5, 2017
from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Bruce H. Hendricks, District
Leon Holt, Jr., JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT, Cordova,
Tennessee, for Appellant.
Jamisen A. Etzel, CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA &
CARPENTER, LLP, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
Lynch, CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
and remanded by published opinion. Judge Wilkinson wrote the
opinion, in which Judge King and Judge Floyd joined.
WILKINSON, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Alexis Degidio filed a putative collective and class action
against defendant-appellant Crazy Horse Saloon and
Restaurant, Inc. (Crazy Horse). This appeal concerns the
enforceability of arbitration agreements that were executed
more than a year after this litigation began.
is a valuable means of resolving disputes expeditiously, but
this case shows that it can sometimes be abused to prolong
litigation, exploit the judicial process, and give defendants
two opportunities to prevail on the merits. The district
court denied Crazy Horse's motion to compel arbitration.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm its judgment and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
also argues on appeal that because the National Labor
Relations Act (NLRA) protects employees' right to
"engage in . . . concerted activities for . . . mutual
aid or protection, " 29 U.S.C. § 157, it
invalidates arbitration agreements that prevent employees
from bringing class or collective actions against employers.
This question is currently before the Supreme Court. See
Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp., 823 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir.
2016), cert. granted, 137 S.Ct. 809 (Jan. 13, 2017)
(No. 16-285). Since we find the arbitration agreements infirm
for reasons quite independent of the question raised in
Epic Systems, we have no need to address that issue.
performed as an exotic dancer at Crazy Horse's
gentlemen's club in 2012 and 2013. Crazy Horse classified
entertainers who performed at its club as "independent
contractors." The entertainers were not paid by Crazy
Horse, but were instead compensated through customer
filed this class and collective action on August 8, 2013.
Degidio alleged that Crazy Horse misclassified her and other
putative class members as independent contractors and that it
further violated the minimum wage and overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201
et seq. Degidio also claimed that Crazy Horse
violated the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act (SCPWA), SC
Code § 41-10-10 et seq., by failing to pay