Advertisement

April 20, 2014

No Longer a Belieber

The former personal bodyguard of “teen icon” (as he is referred to in the complaint) Justin Bieber has filed suit against the celebrity for California wage and hour violations, among other charges. The bodyguard asserts he regularly worked 14-18 hours a day, seven says a week protecting the Biebs, but was wrongly classified as exempt and never received overtime pay. The bodyguard is also suing for unpaid wages and vacation pay.  The Complaint can be found here.

In addition to the employment law aspect, Bieber’s former bodyguard alleges that Bieber assaulted him by repeatedly striking him in the chest and upper body when the crooner thought the bodyguard was trying to keep someone in Bieber’s entourage away from him.

As the case develops, we will be closely tracking the details, so stay tuned.The takeaway from the complaint, obviously, is to beware the Biebs' sneaky left hook.

© 2014 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

R. Holtzman Hedrick, Labor and Employment, Barnes Thornburg, Law firm
Associate

Holt Hedrick is an associate in the Indianapolis office of Barnes & Thornburg, where he is a member of the firm's Labor & Employment Law Department. Mr. Hedrick's practice focuses on a wide range of issues within the scope of labor and employment law, including discrimination suits, trade secrets, restrictive covenants, and employer consultations. Mr. Hedrick also has extensive experience as a commercial litigator, including defending companies against class actions, mass torts, federal privacy statutory claims, and breach of contract/warranty claims. Mr. Hedrick practices...

317-231-6438

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in