Stripper Botches Unfair Dismissal Claim by Not Showing Up

An unfair dismissal claim brought by a lap dancer against a Brisbane strip club has been scrapped by the Fair Work Commission. The club had lodged a jurisdictional objection to the claim, arguing that the dancer was never an employee, but rather a contractor. The Commission had to decide if this was the case, ruling that it was indeed so.

Not helping her cause, however, was the lap dancer failing to provide evidence nor show up for Commission proceedings. In this article, we detail the events of this case along with that of a US stripper who sued her employer, alleging she was forced to have sex with clients.

We also share the story of a government worker who became an unintentional stripper when he accidentally flashed his genitals on a Teams call, later alleging his dismissal was racist.

 

No show Brisbane stripper tanks unfair dismissal claim

This story concerns the events of the Fair Work Commission case Murray v 239 Brunswick Pty Ltd and Raffoul [2025]. Sarah Murray worked as a lap dancer for 239 Brunswick Pty Ltd at the business’s K Klub StripClub in Brisbane. In September 2023, Ms. Murray had entered an agreement with 239 Brunswick Pty Ltd to work at the club under a pseudonym.

In late 2024, she lodged an application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal with the Fair Work Commission. Ms. Murray alleged that she had been terminated and that it had been unfair. The details of her dismissal, however, were not known as Ms. Murray chose not to submit evidence or turn up to any Commission proceedings.

Was she an employee or contractor?

The key dispute the Commission had to resolve was whether Ms. Murray was an employee of the business or an independent contractor. If she was the latter, she would not be eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim.

239 Brunswick Pty Ltd argued that she was an independent contractor and therefore she could not have been dismissed. Ms. Murray, however, claimed that she had been an employee and was employed under the Live Performance Award 2020.

 

Stripper only earned tips in ‘VIP lap rooms’

239 Brunswick Pty Ltd explained to the Fair Work Commission that the strip club at which Ms. Murray worked had a main stage. Typically, there were up to three dancers performing on the stage. The club also had two ‘VIP’ lap rooms where patrons could receive private lap dancers. The club did not pay dancers for dancing on the main stage. They were only paid for work done in the private rooms and they received cash payments from patrons directly. The club, therefore, never paid any dancers itself.

The business told the Commission that dancers were allowed to perform their duties in any way that is permitted under Queenland’s Liquor Act. The Act includes the Adult Entertainment Code, which regulates performances of a sexually explicit nature on licensed premises. Ms. Murray chose her own music and her own costumes. Anything she needed for her act was at her own expense, free from any club branding or uniform requirements.

 

Stripper had to pay to dance

Ms. Murray’s arrangement with 239 Brunswick Pty Ltd was an unconventional one. She was not on a payroll in the traditional sense. Instead, she paid a reservation fee to secure her spot at the club. She had to pay an up to $75 per room reservation, with the amount fluctuating on the time of day. Her earnings flowed directly from the clients she engaged with, the price for her private performances negotiated between them.

Tips were hers to keep entirely. This meant that on any given night, Ms. Murray carried the financial risk. A quiet night with few clients translated directly to lower earnings. She even faced fines for late cancellations or no-shows.

 

Chose when she could dance at club

239 Brunswick Pty Ltd told the Fair Work Commission that rostering was managed through an app called “Deputy,” allowing dancers to choose their preferred time slots. The initial agreement with Ms. Murray hinted at a minimum of shifts per week. However, the reality, according to the club’s director, was more flexible. He said that Ms. Murray was not issued with the hours or days on which she would work.

 

Stripper a no show at unfair dismissal proceedings

In February 2025, Ms. Murray and her employer were asked by the Fair Work Commission to provide evidence. The respondents 239 Brunswick Pty Ltd and the second respondent Moussa Raffoul complied with these directions. However, Ms. Murray remained silent despite being granted multiple extensions to file her evidence.

The next month, her legal representation ceased to act for her. She also failed to respond to direct requests from the Commission or appear at a hearing in April 2025. This absence of any evidence from Ms. Murray became a critical factor in the Fair Work Commission’s decision. It proceeded to determine the matter based on the evidence provided by the respondents.

 

Fair Work examined nature of working relationship

The Fair Work Commission examined the evidence presented by the nightclub operator. The core of the issue was whether Ms. Murray was an employee or an independent contractor, as the protections against unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act apply to employees.

The Commission acknowledged some clauses in the agreement that suggested a degree of control by the nightclub. This included the right to give Ms. Murray directions and alter her duties. However, the Commission placed significant weight on the practical realities of Ms. Murray’s engagement. A key factor was her lack of traditional remuneration from the club. The Commission noted that Ms Murray was “not paid a wage or any other remuneration” by 239 Brunswick Pty Ltd.

It was accepted that her income was directly tied to her ability to attract clients and perform private dances. This direct client-to-performer payment model, coupled with Ms. Murray bearing the financial risk of slow nights and even paying fees to the club, pointed strongly towards an independent contractor arrangement.

 

Stripper mostly controlled working relationship with club

The Fair Work Commission noted that Ms. Murray’s contract “did not exclusively” point to a relationship of principal and independent contractor. It had several requirements that made it seem like an employment relationship. This included stipulating a minimum number of shifts during particular periods. It also mentioned that she had to comply with lawful and reasonable directions and with its policies and procedures.

However, the Commission noted that 239 Brunswick Pty Ltd was not given any directions as to the days or hours she was to perform. It recognised that Ms. Murray largely controlled her working hours through the “Deputy” app and informal arrangements.

The club’s oversight of her performances appeared limited to ensuring legal compliance, not dictating her artistic choices. The absence of any club branding or provision of equipment further supported the notion of Ms. Murray operating with a degree of independence.

 

Fair Work dismissed application

The Fair Work Commission was ultimately of the view that the “practical reality and true nature of the relationship” was one of principal and independent contractor. It concluded that Ms. Murray was not an employee and therefore could not have been dismissed. However, the Commission also highlighted the significant impact of Ms. Murray’s silence.

It said that it was “possible” that had she contested the evidence of her employer it would have “yielded a different result.” The Commission noted that Ms. Murray’s initial application had alleged directions to perform duties outside her contract and control over her performance obligations. However, without any evidence to support these claims, they could not be considered. Ultimately, the Fair Work Commission upheld the nightclub’s jurisdictional objection, dismissing Ms. Murray’s application.

 

Dismissed stripper claimed she was forced to have sex with clients

This story, which attracted media attention in October 2023, comes to us from the US. It involved Diana Romero, who worked as a stripper at La Vida Gentlemen’s Club in Los Angeles. Her stint at the club lasted only about a month. She was paid anywhere from US$25 to US$500 for private lap dances and often worked over 12-hour days, six days per week.

In October 2023, Ms. Romero launched a legal suit against her former employer. She claimed to a Los Angeles court that the club had dismissed her because she refused to have sex with clients. Ms. Romero alleged that she was forced to have sex with up to seven men per day.

Was sexually harassed by managers

Ms. Romero claimed that if she refused to sleep with clients, she would be forced to do double shifts or would have her hours reduced. She also told the court that she was inappropriately touched and verbally harassed by three club managers. This started from her first day at the club.

Ms. Romero complained to the club owner about the harassment and being forced to sleep with clients. This complaint was ignored and she was later dismissed. This happened after Ms. Romero refused to go into a room where she claimed managers would abuse the club’s dancers.

Sought damages

Ms. Romero claimed that she was dismissed as a direct result of raising concerns about harassment and exploitation. She also alleged that the club failed to compensate her for all hours worked, including approximately 48 hours of unpaid overtime. She said that the club did not provide meal or rest breaks as required under state law and that managers demanded that she pay them a portion of her tips.

Ms. Romero sought damages, the amount of which has not been specified. She also requested a court injunction to halt what she described as “continuing unfair business acts and practices.”

 

Manager who flashed genitals on Teams call blames racism for dismissal

While this story from the UK, which made news headlines in May 2025, does not involve a stripper per se, it does concern a middle manager who became one by accident. The manager, referred to as DB by a UK employment tribunal, worked for the UK government’s Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

In May 2023, DB was on a Teams call with colleagues and those from an external consultancy firm based in India. During the call, he stood up to adjust a cable behind his PC. But as he stood up, he forgot that he was completely nude from the waist down. DB ended up displaying all of his manhood for the appreciation of meeting attendees.

Shortly after the call, a formal complaint was made to Financial Services Compensation Scheme. When questioned during an internal investigation, DB blamed the incident on the fact that the meeting took place on a public holiday. He said that he did not realise he was nude from the waist down given it was meant to be his day off.

 

Blamed public holiday, racism for dismissal

DB subsequently lodged a claim with a UK employment tribunal. He argued that “expecting me to work during public holidays is a racial discrimination.” DB was a UK and Australian citizen originally from India. He claimed that the handling of his incident and the denial of his promotion requests was “nothing but” racial discrimination, mental harassment and unfair dismissal. DB also argued that his employer’s dress code did not apply on public holidays and that he was forced to work on his day off.

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme argued to the tribunal that DB had violated expected standards of professional conduct. It refuted his claim that the incident was caused by the fact it happened on a public holiday. It also slammed the idea that the dress code did not apply. The organisation said that DB did not provide reassurance that a similar incident would not happen again. It said that he had “not shown any remorse” but instead blamed the external contractors on the call.

 

Said he was wearing ‘nude-coloured’ undies

DB told the tribunal that his flashing incident was an “accident” and offered his “apologies.” He also confessed that he did not always “wear full dress” while working from home and that he had accidentally exposed his genitals on the day in question. However, he later told the tribunal that he had been wearing “nude-coloured” underwear and therefore had not flashed at all. The tribunal, of course, called DB out for his inconsistent testimony.

The tribunal also found no evidence that DB had been forced to work on the public holiday. Instead, it determined that he had “actually chosen to” attend the meeting. It also rejected his promotion-related discrimination claims, citing the inadequacy of his application. It was noted that the role he applied for was “was approximately twice [his] salary” and that he did not have the requisite experience.

 

Worker ‘deflected blame,’ should have known risk being naked

Ultimately, the tribunal found that DB “chose not to wear either trousers or underwear” on the Teams call. It said that this was posed an “obvious risk” because if he needed to stand up he would “reveal his genitals.” The tribunal said that the flashing caused embarrassment for DB’s employer and that he should have known that nudity would be inappropriate. This was especially the case given his leadership position.

The tribunal accepted that DB had initially expressed regret but later attempted to shift blame and minimise his role in the incident. It noted he “sought to obscure or deflect blame” and did not “consistently show remorse.” As a result, tribunal dismissed all claims of unfair dismissal and racial discrimination.

 

Have you been unfairly dismissed?

Give us a call now on 1300 766 700 – because you only have 21 days from the day of your termination to make an unfair dismissal claim. Our team has over three decades’ experience helping Australian workers fight against unjust terminations. Take advantage of our no win, no fee service and free initial consultation to get the compensation you deserve.