Courts Rule That Deja Vu Clubs Are Not Dancers' Employers

-- With two wins already under her belt, Michigan-based Edi Thomas, attorney for the Deja Vu chain of gentlemen's clubs, is hoping for - what else? - deja vu in another pair of cases she's brought against the Internal Revenue Service.\n In federal courts in Louisville, Kentucky, and Minneapolis, Minnesota, the IRS had sued Deja Vu Showgirls, contending that the clubs had not paid withholding taxes for the dancers performing therein, in violation of the IRS Code. In both cases, Deja Vu paid the six-figure assessments and then sued the IRS, in a process now required by law, but which is due to change with upcoming federal legislation.\n In both suits, Deja Vu asserted that the dancers at its clubs were independent contractors who had in fact paid Deja Vu for permission to perform in the clubs through a "Dancer Performance Lease Agreement," which specifically denied any employer/employee relationship. And although Deja Vu sets the rates dancers will charge for their services, the club itself pays the dancers nothing; all income to the dancers comes directly from club guests. This concept is enshrined in Section 530 of the IRS Code.\n "Deja Vu was able to show that they didn't exercise very much technical control over entertainers," Thomas told AVN, "and we were able to produce, as witnesses, entertainers who were filing tax returns, and were able to testify how their work differed from that of an employee.\n "Even though that's not really relevant to the case against Deja Vu," she continued, "I think it gave Deja Vu some credibility because federal judges, when they have the opportunity, I think would rule against an adult business if they had the chance."\n However, both judges granted summary judgment to Deja Vu on the basis of briefs submitted by both parties, and Thomas expects the same to happen in an upcoming case in Springfield, Illinois. Another case in Seattle, Washington is a bit more complicated, due to dancers receiving credits from the club for the number of "ladies drinks" they sold. Though summary judgment was denied in that case, Thomas still expects to win at trial, which is set for November.