MMAPlayground.com

Forum Index > Community > MMA News Share Forum
Former TapouT employee sues for being forced to watch UFC   [View Full Version]
Pages: [1] 2 3
emfleek » Posted 11/18/07 4:54:00PM

Michelle Thomas, a 32-year-old ometime model who worked for the mixed-martial-arts clothing and lifestyle company TapouT says in a lawsuit that her bosses actually made her watch television on her own time..

... Thomas claims that the company required workers to watch its eponymous reality show on Versus as well as Ultimate Fighting Championship bouts on Pay Per View on their own time -- and on their own dime.

The woman from San Pedro worked at the company for eight months in sales and filed her wrongful termination suit in 2008, but it's just now being heard before a jury this week.

LINK

_______________________________________
"I'm like the superhero coming in with the anti-bullsh*t." - Nick Diaz

JoeWarren33 » Posted 4/27/09 4:41:00PM

A one time model? I have met models before, and they think they are gods gift to the world.
All I gotta say is "Boo Hoo" lol

tallica62 » Posted 6/22/07 2:18:00AM

i wish my job forced me to watch UFC

xburbx » Posted 6/21/07 5:17:00PM

32 is over the hill for models. one last effort to make some quick cash.

papercut » Posted 3/3/07 4:18:00PM


Posted by tallica62

i wish my job forced me to watch UFC



me too. but on their dime. 150 a month for 3 UFC ppvs a month(assuming its a long month) is crazy. thats more than my sister pays to lease her car.

_______________________________________
-Jason

prozacnation1978 » Posted 7/5/07 11:42:00PM

If your a tapout employee. You would think you know knowledge of mma a fan of iy and want to watch the fights on tv without your bosses telling you

Bloodhound » Posted 5/27/08 1:50:00PM


Posted by tallica62

i wish my job forced me to watch UFC



this

cmill21 » Posted 5/27/07 4:09:00PM


Posted by prozacnation1978

If your a tapout employee. You would think you know knowledge of mma a fan of iy and want to watch the fights on tv without your bosses telling you



She's a model. They stand there and look good in clothes, they literally need to know nothing about the product or what it represents.

machodog76 » Posted 6/26/07 10:37:00PM

I call BS, if she was fired without just cause she could collect unempolyment, I suspect this will be the last we hear about her.

BlueSkiesBurn » Posted 6/1/08 3:18:00PM


Posted by cmill21


Posted by prozacnation1978

If your a tapout employee. You would think you know knowledge of mma a fan of iy and want to watch the fights on tv without your bosses telling you



She's a model. They stand there and look good in clothes, they literally need to know nothing about the product or what it represents.



Seriously. I understand that everyone here loves MMA, but I HATE being told what I have to do on my own time. If you want to force them to watch UFC or TapouT programming, then do at work. Have all the employees come in watch it as a "company meeting."

Telling someone that they have to shell out their money to order UFC is complete BS. As Papercut said, if this is true, I hope they rule in her favor. In a down economy no job should be able to force you to spend at least $150 of your own money.

That's akin to a Disney store employee being told that they HAVE to pay to go and see every Disney movie the night it's released and pay for it themselves. Just because you work there, doesn't mean you care. Hell, just ask Lane Kiffin.

postman » Posted 6/23/07 7:57:00PM


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Posted by cmill21


Posted by prozacnation1978

If your a tapout employee. You would think you know knowledge of mma a fan of iy and want to watch the fights on tv without your bosses telling you



She's a model. They stand there and look good in clothes, they literally need to know nothing about the product or what it represents.



Seriously. I understand that everyone here loves MMA, but I HATE being told what I have to do on my own time. If you want to force them to watch UFC or TapouT programming, then do at work. Have all the employees come in watch it as a "company meeting."

Telling someone that they have to shell out their money to order UFC is complete BS. As Papercut said, if this is true, I hope they rule in her favor. In a down economy no job should be able to force you to spend at least $150 of your own money.

That's akin to a Disney store employee being told that they HAVE to pay to go and see every Disney movie the night it's released and pay for it themselves. Just because you work there, doesn't mean you care. Hell, just ask Lane Kiffin.


I agree I can see if it part of the job description to be up to date on the sport since you represent a brand in the sport but this is going over the top.

ncordless » Posted 4/8/07 11:09:00PM


The article doesn't do a good job of explaining the unpaid commission, but that will depend on whether she did indeed do whatever it was that she was commissioned to do by written contract, not any sort of verbal promise.

The "being forced to watch UFC" the way the it is described in the article is a little sketchy, too. Is demanding that sales employees have a high-level of knowledge about the focus of the company forcing someone to work unpaid overtime to acquire that knowledge? If so, there are many sales positions that should be getting those wages. This might lead to an absurd result. Should record store employees get paid everytime they listen to music? Would it matter whether it was something the employee liked to do? If so, how would a business defend against a claim that they didn't like it every time? Is the practice of employment contracts containing a signed statement by the prospective employee swearing to being a fan of whatever it is that the company does or something similar to that really better?

If they forced her to pay for PPVs by doing something showing a receipt and not reimbursing her for it, that would be one thing. But in my opinion it is quite something else to expect a certain amount of knowledge of the subject.

It will all depend on the particulars of Cali law and the facts, though.

_______________________________________
Flame Not, Lest Ye Be Flamed Yourself.

KO_Strike » Posted 8/24/10 7:23:00PM

wow, i think this is an example of the supporting the sport/mma crusade gone wrong. to be fair she can probably use it as a tax write off but forcing employee's to pay out of their own pockets for PPV's is messed up.

bjj1605 » Posted 10/11/07 4:18:00PM


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Posted by cmill21


Posted by prozacnation1978

If your a tapout employee. You would think you know knowledge of mma a fan of iy and want to watch the fights on tv without your bosses telling you



She's a model. They stand there and look good in clothes, they literally need to know nothing about the product or what it represents.



Seriously. I understand that everyone here loves MMA, but I HATE being told what I have to do on my own time. If you want to force them to watch UFC or TapouT programming, then do at work. Have all the employees come in watch it as a "company meeting."

Telling someone that they have to shell out their money to order UFC is complete BS. As Papercut said, if this is true, I hope they rule in her favor. In a down economy no job should be able to force you to spend at least $150 of your own money.

That's akin to a Disney store employee being told that they HAVE to pay to go and see every Disney movie the night it's released and pay for it themselves. Just because you work there, doesn't mean you care. Hell, just ask Lane Kiffin.



I totally agree. I even get pissed when I have to run for my work off the clock. Like if the ask me to go pick something up before I come in. I wouldn't sue over that, but PPV can get really expensive.

I suppose the difference here is going to be if they actually explicitly said she had to watch it (or implied it strongly enough) or if simply said they wanted knowledgeable employees and she misread the suggestion.

grappler0000 » Posted 3/24/07 5:29:00PM

I work in a field where you are required to obtain and maintain certain knowledge and certifications off of work hours. If not, you no longer hold a value to your employer and you move along so someone else that's more motivated can take your spot. I know what people are saying, but, there are plenty of other jobs out there that require people to do very similar things and nobody else is suing. If it's required for you job, yet isn't reimbursed, that's what is called a tax write off.

_______________________________________

Pages: [1] 2 3


[View Full Version of this Page]