By Benjamin K. Wright and Ryan M. Rodenberg
Avid tennis fans may have noticed something missing from the most recent United States Open (US Open) professional tennis tournament and it wasn’t Rafael Nadal, Serena Williams, Novak Djokovic, Maria Sharapova, or Roger Federer. All the top-ranked players were present at the 2011 US Open. Instead, roughly half of the world’s most respected tennis umpires were absent. The reason for their absence is now clear, some were protesting pay and working conditions while contemporaneously preparing a class action lawsuit against the United States Tennis Association (USTA), the organization that oversees the US Open. The lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Steven Meyer, Marc Bell, Larry Mulligan-Gibbs, and Aimee Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against defendant USTA on September 8, 2011 in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages on their behalf and behalf of others who worked as umpires at the US Open during main draw and qualifying matches. The claims appeal to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for misclassification of umpires and failure to pay all wages including over time. The plaintiffs bring to attention that, in the USTA’s own words, the US Open is a “sports and entertainment extravaganza” with a strong economic impact to New York City that in 2008 drew a crowd of over 720,000 people. Further, the plaintiffs claim that over the past six years, umpires have not been paid in compliance with applicable federal and state law and have been misclassified as independent contractors, consequently being deprived of pay to which they are entitled.
The first claim for relief pertains to all umpires who worked the US Open in 2009, 2010, and 2011. It alleges that the defendant is liable under the FLSA for failing to compensate the plaintiffs properly. The second and third claims for relief, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), are on behalf of umpires who worked during the US Open in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. While the precise number of FRCP Rule 23 class members is unknown to the plaintiffs, as are the identities of all members, it is expected to be in the hundreds if the case moves forward.
Questions of law and fact important to the lawsuit include: (i) whether the defendant’s acts violated the New York Labor Law (NYLL); (ii) whether the defendant failed to pay straight time and/or overtime; (iii) whether the defendant failed to keep true and accurate time and pay records for all hours worked by their employees; (iv) whether the defendant failed to furnish plaintiffs and Rule 23 class members with accurate statements of wages, hours worked, rates paid, and gross wages required by the NYLL; (v) whether the defendant improperly classified the plaintiffs and Rule 23 class members as independent contractors; (vi) whether the members of the Rule 23 class have sustained damages; and (vii) whether the defendant’s actions were willful.
The plaintiffs present factual allegations in hopes of clearly identifying the alleged wrongdoings of the defendant. Umpires at the US Open must be certified by the USTA, attend training courses, and pass written tests. Maintaining certification requires umpires to work a minimum number of days, matches, and tournaments and all umpires must adhere to the standards in the Officials’ Code of Conduct. Uniforms, assignments, and communication regulations with media, spectators, and players are highlighted in the code. Umpires have a certification level, regulated by the defendant, that determines compensation (e.g. a Gold Badge Chair Umpire makes more than a USTA Provisional Umpire). The defendant also allegedly dictated policies concerning attendance, check-in times, rain delay procedures, departure times, and umpire evaluations. Umpires were apparently required to report to work by 10 a.m. (some days earlier for mandatory meetings) and often worked more than eight hours per day, seven days a week, during the US Open. Umpires regularly worked more than forty hours per week during the tournament, but were not paid proper overtime according to the complaint. Instead, they were allegedly paid based upon a set schedule determined by the defendant.
The plaintiffs claim they were employees, not independent contractors, of the defendant and were required to work for all or a part of the US Open with hours and schedules set by the defendant. The majority of umpires were housed at hotels paid for by the defendant in Manhattan and traveled by buses paid for by the defendant to the matches. Umpires were often picked up hours before the 10 a.m. start time to ensure a timely arrival. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant had control of when, where, and how umpires performed their responsibilities and required umpires to attend mandatory meetings and training sessions necessary for employment. The plaintiffs further claim that the defendant classified plaintiffs as independent contractors to avoid paying overtime compensation in accordance with the FLSA.
In making their claims against the USTA, the plaintiffs have demanded a trial by jury. The litigants will almost certainly differ on employment status of the umpires and whether they were compensated in accordance with the law. Absent a quick settlement, it will be interesting to see if the lawsuit will precipitate a complete makeover of the USTA’s umpire-related hiring process and procedures.
Benjamin K. Wright is a graduate student at Florida State University. Ryan M. Rodenberg is an assistant professor at Florida State University. © Benjamin K. Wright and Ryan M. Rodenberg 2011.
