Exotic dancers remain at odds with city

Judy Odierna

Friday, Jan. 3, 2003 | 11:14 a.m.

A meeting with city officials Thursday failed to resolve the American Civil Liberties Union's objections to Las Vegas' proposed new requirements for exotic dancers and the dispute may have to be settled by the courts, officials said.

Exotic dancers and the American Civil Liberties Union say the city of Las Vegas' plans to require strippers to pay more than $200 for a business license are unconstitutional.

The proposed ordinance, which is to come before the city's Recommending Committee on Monday, classifies dancers as independent contractors and would switch them from a work card system to business licenses. The dancers would have to pay $150 annually for the license and an additional $50 to $75 for a background check by Metro Police.

The proposed rate could generate an additional $150,000 to $750,000 for the city, officials have said -- and that's one of the key issues for Gary Peck, executive director of the ACLU in Nevada.

"Whether or not the city opts for a license or a work card is more or less irrelevant," Peck said. "However, the courts have been very clear with respect to this activity and any license or work card must be revenue neutral. They cannot use this scheme to make money."

Jim Difiore, manager of the city's Finance and Business Services Department, said the money would be used to offset the cost of inspection officers who would make sure dancers follow city codes limiting sexually oriented touching between dancers and patrons.

"One hundred and fifty dollars is not an exorbitant amount of money compared to any other profession," Difiore said.

But the cost is not the only thing Peck and Andrea Hackett, president of the Las Vegas Dancers Alliance, cite as unconstitutional.

Hackett says dancers are not independent contractors but employees of the clubs they work in.

"We have schedules and no control of our creative content," Hackett said. "We are as much of an employee as someone who works at Wal-Mart."

Peck and Hackett also question the legality of a portion of the ordinance that would deny a license to a dancer who has committed a crime, and language that exempts adult entertainment dancers in casinos from having to get licenses as well.

"The fact that the casinos are exempted cannot be explained," Peck said. "It's political. It is not about a carefully considered policy issue."

Some of the owners of the four nude and five topless clubs within the Las Vegas city limits say they like the proposal because it will help regulate the business and eliminate "problem dancers" from their clubs.

Thomas Squillante, manager of the Girls of Glitter Gulch, 20 Fremont Street, said there are no schedules at his club.

"They pay rent to be there and most clubs require a six-hour shift, but they don't have a set schedule," said Squillante. "The girls don't like it because it holds them accountable."

Difiore said he has listened to the concerns of the dancers and will most likely present the ordinance, unmodified, to the Recommending Committee on Monday.

Peck said the current draft of the new ordinance would not withstand a legal challenge.

"While we do not have the standing to sue we would support anyone who did," Peck said. "We would be surprised if that didn't happen."

Hackett said a lawsuit is a virtual certainty if the city adopts the changes as currently drafted. Hackett said she hopes the city will postpone the final vote so that all the potential ramifications can be thoroughly reviewed.

"I hope they take our suggestions to heart," she said. "It's a dangerous experiment especially at this point and time with the economy. Adult entertainment is central to what we do. Las Vegas is about casinos and strip clubs. Like it or not, that's what we do."