bad mistake

Um, I think we better hear from a California attorney before this one gets passed around. I'm only a secretary, but I've worked on PLENTY of lawsuits where a non-compete clause is at the heart of it. Non-compete clauses are alive and well in the state of California, though none of these NCC's was in regard to dance studios. But they are written about just about everything else.

Is there anybody on the forum who is an attorney (California or New York?) who can enlighten us on this subject? I wouldn't want Mr. Bixx (or anyone esle) to get in trouble because of bad information.

I wouldn't know because none of the AT teacher's around here teach through a studio. The one studio teacher I know owns his own outfit, so I guess it's not a franchise.

Renee
 
(With all the appropriate caveats--such as I am not a legal expert nor attorney).

Does the studio have a well-published definition of what fraternization is? Is it readily available to ALL the employees? Where does the social kindness of helping someone get to an event end, and fraternization begin? (I mean from the studio's standpoint?)

Asking an employee to uphold a professional demeanor with (the business' clients or) students is one thing. But to curtail innocent social converse is another.

Regardless of contractual clauses, isn't the regulation of one's freedoms against the democratic tenets of society? And therefore unenforceable?


madmaximus
 
Laura said:
pygmalion said:
I guess the terms of the agreement probably differ from franchise to franchise, but they all have 'em. :? I don't know whether independent studios have written policies or not.
Click to expand...
...As far as I can tell, it's strictly a franchise thing.
Click to expand...
I actually know of one independent studio with a non-fraternization policy. :?
 
I took a look at Mambo Queen's link -- I only skimmed the first few paragraphs, but it looks like a good discussion. I hope everybody reads it.

I think there's three very separate issues involved -- the financial aspect of the studio trying to protect its client base and prevent its teachers from leaving and taking their customers with them, the personal aspect of trying to prevent sexual harassment by their employees of their customers and harassment of their employees by their customers. And even more important, is preventing sexual abuse and assault upon underage minors. The studio is potentially liable for all of this stuff, and has liability insurance to cover it, which makes it a juicy and attractive target.

But then, the teachers/employees have rights, too, such as the right to privacy, the right to work, etc. Trying to balance all these rights is what lands people in court arguing it out in front of a jury.

I wish there were a better way, but people being what they are, there probably isn't.

:cry:

Renee
 
Non-fraternization agreements are an understandable approach, yes. But somehow, the majority of independent studios seem to survive without them. Hmm. The studio SD mentions is the only one I've heard of that had such a policy.

Are there others? 8)

Incidentally, I do know of one franchise studio that looks the other way while one of its teachers takes a student out for regular ballroom socials. Nothing romantic. Just dancing. I guess she must be one of their best customers. Hmm again. :wink: :lol:
 
madmaximus said:
Asking an employee to uphold a professional demeanor with (the business' clients or) students is one thing. But to curtail innocent social converse is another.

Regardless of contractual clauses, isn't the regulation of one's freedoms against the democratic tenets of society? And therefore unenforceable?
madmaximus
Click to expand...

It's not against democratic tenets of society-- the teacher wasn't forced to work at the studio. Chances are that if they wanted to work at a franchised studio, a contract had to be signed. But the instructor knew what was in the contract at the time of agreeing to it and therefore gave their consent to obey the policies. Just like signing a non-disclosure agreement at a government or some high tech job.
 
love2swing said:
madmaximus said:
Asking an employee to uphold a professional demeanor with (the business' clients or) students is one thing. But to curtail innocent social converse is another.

Regardless of contractual clauses, isn't the regulation of one's freedoms against the democratic tenets of society? And therefore unenforceable?
madmaximus
Click to expand...

It's not against democratic tenets of society-- the teacher wasn't forced to work at the studio. Chances are that if they wanted to work at a franchised studio, a contract had to be signed. But the instructor knew what was in the contract at the time of agreeing to it and therefore gave their consent to obey the policies. Just like signing a non-disclosure agreement at a government or some high tech job.
Click to expand...

Hmm... good point. It can't be against--if the party willingly goes into the contract. But what if the party didn't know or understand the scope of the restriction?


m
 
But a provision in a contract that is contrary to applicable law may not be enforceable; intimidating yes, and potentially even expensive, but not necessarily enforceable. Figuring that out is why we have courts.
 
well i'm home after a long day at the studio. taught constantly today and at the end of the day i was aksed to stay after to talk. we had about an hour meeting. it sure was nice for my ex to make up this big story. so after the tlak i had to sign some written thing to go into my file and basically never do it again and i must apologize to the entire staff for what i did. i'm seriously out of this studio. i'm gonna build up alittle income and move. i have 2 ladys going to nationals in april so after that i will have enough to pick up and start over. i cant deal with the drama anymore. i guess the good news is i didnt get fired. :?
 
Ditto! That's absurd that you have to apologize to the staff.

Are you IN California?

That article said that most people who sign these agreements don't know NC's are banned there, but sign anyway without knowing. It also says that one big downside to the way the law was written is that if a person successfully defends themself in court, they cannot seek restitution for legal fees, etc. Someone clearly messed up on that one!

I'd still tell them that fraternization was not clearly defined for you beforehand. It seems to me that simply driving a person to the dance doesn't fit that description, but I could be wrong.
 
I think turnabout is fair play. You need to start spreading a few stories about your ex. :twisted:
 
I'm glad you didn't get fired. I suspected they'd come up with something obnoxious to make your life miserable. The worst of it, the not knowing, is over.

And your ex? Well. There're things I'd say, but I have to keep it clean. She'll get hers, one day. :evil:

The good thing is that now you get to leave on your own terms and in your own time. You have time to do some research and figure out where you want to go next. Good luck, dude. 8)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Dance Ads

Advertise on Dance Forums Reach dancers, teachers, studios, event organizers, and dance-friendly brands. View ad options
Back
Top