The charging party alleged that dancers were “pressured... to have sex with high-paying and recurring customers in the champagne rooms.”
The EEOC retains the authority to investigate a charge even after it issues a right-to-sue letter to the charging party and the charging party files a lawsuit, the Second Circuit held in a case in which a dancer alleged widespread sexual harassment and a hostile work environment at two adult entertainment clubs in Manhattan. In addition, the pedigree information the EEOC sought from the clubs is relevant to the underlying charge, and complying with the subpoenas would not be unduly burdensome in the case, the appeals court found (EEOC v. AAM Holding Corp., No. 24-1672-cv (2d Cir. Aug. 25, 2025)).
FlashDancers Midtown and Downtown. The charging party, according to the court, is a former dancer at FlashDancers Midtown and FlashDancers Downtown, two adult entertainment clubs operated by AAM Holding Corp. and the other named respondents in Manhattan. She worked “interchangeably at both locations” from September 2019 to July 2021.
Class charge. In March 2022 she filed a class charge with the EEOC, alleging widespread sexual harassment and a hostile work environment at both clubs, which she alleged was “perpetuated through the policies and practices” of the clubs. Among other things, she alleged that she and approximately 40 other women dancers were forced to “change clothes in an open back room, without proper doors... which was monitored by...
Russian propaganda is spreading false statements that the account of the head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, Kyrylo Budanov, was allegedly created with...