Between April and September of 2016, I worked at a club in Minneapolis, called Seville. During this time, I encountered sexual harassment, surveillance, illegal tip pooling, misclassification and exploitation of the workers. Seville knew what I was about, so they eventually terminated my contract. I filed a charge with the NLRB, and privately sued them in arbitration for misclassification, sexual harassment and illegal tip pooling. The next number of entries will discuss Seville and be called “The Seville Series.”

***

With the NLRB, I did not have a chance to have a hearing like I wanted to. If a club makes an offer to settle that the NLRB finds acceptable, even if I don't want to settle, the NLRB will approve a unilateral decision to do so. That is what happened with my charge at Seville through the NLRB. A hearing was scheduled that I was willing to attend, but Seville made an offer that the NLRB accepted. Below is the poster that they had to put up on behalf of me:

Seville's NLRB Poster

I wrote to the regional director of the NLRB, requesting that she not approve settlement. While she did not comply with my request, she did send me a nice email, describing how she thought I had already “won” and didn't need to have a hearing. I asked her if I could put it on my website. Below is her email:

Dear Ms. Campbell,

I have considered your request that I not approve a settlement in 18-CA-183731, RCI Dining Services (Glenwood), Inc. d/b/a The Seville Club. A settlement does not reflect anything less than a win when it provides for a full remedy of the violations. If we won this case before an administrative law judge, that decision is no less challengeable than the Regional Director’s merit finding. Specifically, the Judge’s decision can be appealed to the Board and the Board’s decision can be appealed to the Circuit Court, and finally, the Circuit Court’s decision to the Supreme Court. All of this litigation is at a cost to the Agency, and thus, the taxpayers, which is why the Agency does not litigate cases where a settlement is reached that remedies the violations found. If we were to present this case to an administrative law judge and they found merit, they would be ordering the same remedies. It would not be a responsible fiduciary decision for me to take this matter to trial, when there wouldn’t be further remedial relief. Further, I find it notable that the settlement being presented to me for approval in this case does not contain a non-admissions clause, which is something I rarely see. A non-admissions clause is usually requested and granted to non-recidivist employers and it says, “By entering into this agreement, the Employer does not admit that is has violated the National Labor Relations Act.”

I applaud you for your work educating workers about their rights, as employees. Your charge has resulted in a win; the Region found merit to your charge and the violations will be remedied. This is a very good win and the settlement, along with the remedies imposed, are a result of your actions advocating for employees’ rights and filing a charge with the NLRB. The Employer is being held accountable by the remedies required in the settlement. Furthermore, the settlement requires that the Employer comply with the settlement and not violate the Act by similar conduct or the settlement will be revoked and complaint reissued for trial. As I stated, this is a settlement that does address all of the employee rights, under the Act, that were violated. I hope you will reconsider entering into the settlement based on the further information I’ve provided.

Respectfully,

Jennifer Hadsall, Regional Director

National Labor Relations Board, Region 18