Opinion ID: 2068313
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Security at Dream

Text: Okie Dokie, the corporate designation for Dream, provided its own security inside Dream. As of August 2003, each inside security guard wore a black suit and a pin that said Dream and carried a walkie-talkie. Security personnel were prohibited from carrying weapons or items such as mace, and were searched when they came into work to ensure that they were not carrying those items. Until May 2002, police officers from the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) had provided security outside of Dream, and Okie Dokie reimbursed the Department for that service. In May 2002, Okie Dokie contracted with INK to provide security outside of Dream. INK was owned by a man named Jason Harris. Marc Barnes, the owner of Dream, hired INK because of his relationship with Harris. Barnes assumed that because Harris had worked indoor security at the District's Convention Center he had the experience to handle the security at Dream. Barnes' understanding of Harris' position at the Convention Center was that he worked in his individual capacity, rather than as someone who hired other people. When Okie Dokie hired INK to provide outside security at Dream, Barnes did nothing to confirm whether Harris had actually done security work at the Convention Center, nor did he obtain a resume from Harris, perform a background check on Harris, confirm whether INK was properly licensed in the District or inquire whether INK would perform background checks on its security personnel. In July 2002 Okie Dokie and INK entered into an indemnification agreement which stated that they would maintain an independent contractor relationship pursuant to which [INK] provides certain security and automobile traffic-control services to [Okie Dokie] in connection with [Okie Dokie's] management and operation of Dream. The agreement also stated that [t]here is no intention to create by this Agreement an employer-employee or agency relationship between [INK] and [Okie Dokie]. In his deposition Barnes described the reason that different security is needed outside the club than inside the club: Q: When you decided that security ... was needed outside the club because of the neighborhood ... why didn't you use the security that Dream Nightclub already had on staff or expand the internal security? What was it that made you decide to use an outside vendor? A: It is two different elements. The people that I guess I was dealing with are a different type of people than the people [Harris] would deal with. We had the police, first. We thought that was the right type of security for the streets, actually. Q: Is that, generally speaking, because the security that was needed outside the club was, you know, more in the line of preventing sometimes violent crimes as opposed to monitoring patrons?.... A: Exactly. It is a different type of person that lives in the neighborhood that may be dealing with something else... [Outside security] were more, I guess you can say, street savvy where they could deal with the type of guy that, you know, was in that neighborhood, I guess you can say. Barnes also testified that if he noticed that an INK employee looked sloppy, he might ask the employee to improve his appearance. Dream personnel would communicate with Harris or other INK personnel if a patron was intoxicated or had been in an altercation and needed to be walked to their cars. As for payment, Harris would submit a bill to Okie Dokie every week and Okie Dokie would pay INK the amount owed for its services. On May 14, 2004, there was a shooting involving an INK employee, and at that point Okie Dokie and INK mutually parted ways. Since then, the police have again provided security outside of Dream. Barnes testified that Okie Dokie wanted INK personnel to dress in a uniform way. [1] It is unclear what INK personnel wore in August 2003, but they were instructed to dress alike and, at some point, INK security wore black shirts and black pants.