Sandra Lynn’s School of Dance sues former dance instructor for allegedly soliciting the school’s students.


Sandra Lynn’s School of Dance Files Lawsuit against Former Dance Instructor

Sandra Lynn’s School of Dance invests in clients of all ages with an education in various types of dance. In 2005, the dance school hired Cherie as one of their dance instructors. Cherie knowingly signed an employment agreement with non-compete and non-solicitation obligations, where Cherie agreed not “to directly or indirectly contact the Employer’s clients, business clients and employees in regards to offering a service available at the studio.” The agreement also required that Cherie not teach dance within 25 miles of Sandra Lynn’s School of dance for five years once Cherie’s employment ended.lawyers arguing before a judge

While working at the dance school, Cherie developed friendships with students and instructors. Cherie provided an integral part to the community as an instructor. After almost ten years of working with Sandra Lynn’s School of Dance, Cherie resigned from her position. Afterwards, Cherie allegedly approached approximately fifteen students and a few instructors asking them to join her own dance company—a violation of the Employment Agreement.

Cherie opened Impact Dance Center as the co-owner and company director. Moreover, this dance center is within 25 miles of Sandra Lynn’s two dance school locations, which is also in violation of the agreement. Sandra Lynn’s School of Dance calculates that Cherie’s solicitation of students cost the school of dance $96,404 per year, not counting future revenue.

To add insult to injury, Cherie also accepted a teaching position at RFG Association of Performing Arts, which is within 25 miles of both of Sandra Lynn’s School of Dance locations. Cherie must have understood the obligations to her employer after signing the employment agreement. Her actions directly break the promises she agreed to in the contract. Cherie’s contempt for her previous employer and the binding document of the employment agreement is seemingly revealed through her actions. KM&A upholds the law and challenges actions such as Cherie’s.

Full text of this complaint, as filed with the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, is available at docket no: 3698 of 2017

Kraemer, Manes & Associates LLC is an employment law firm with principal offices in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, serving all counties in Pennsylvania, focusing on employment law, business law, litigation, and civil issues. KM&A clients include employees, small businesses, parties in litigation, and people with a variety of legal issues.

For more information about this case, contact Attorney Christi Wallace at 412-626-5575 or at

NOTICE: All information contained in this statement comes from the Complaint which has been filed as a public record with the court. As dedicated civil rights attorneys, we strongly believe in the public value of telling our clients’ stories: violators can be held accountable, and other silent victims can feel empowered to stand up for their legal rights. Although we make every attempt to verify our clients’ claims, note that the defendant is expected to oppose our client’s position, and the court has not ruled one way or the other as of the date of this statement.