Articles Discussing Wage And Hour Issues In Particular Industries.

In recent years, one significant issue that has plagued industries employing tipped employees is whether the employers must ensure that tipped employees retain all of their tips even if the company is not using the employee’s tips to satisfy part of the minimum wage pursuant to the FLSA’s “tip credit” provision, 29 U.S.C. § 203(m). The provisions of Section 203(m) of the FLSA require, among other things, that tipped employees paid a tip credit rate retain all of their tips except for permissible tip pools.

After effectively “punting” on the issue last year, the U.S. Supreme Court has again granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split regarding whether “service advisors” at automobile dealerships are exempt from receiving overtime under an exemption for “salesmen, partsmen, and mechanics” under the FLSA. Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, No. 16-1362 (U.S. Sep. 28, 2017).

When a customer leaves a tip for a server, who receives the full amount of the tip at the end of the day? According to a 2011 Department of Labor (DOL) regulation, the tip always belongs to the server, even if the employer pays the server minimum wage. However, a recent DOL announcement in late July has put this issue back on the table and may resolve a conflict between courts across the country as to tip practices within the hospitality industry. The 2011 regulation states that tips are the property of the employee regardless of whether the employer pays the employee minimum wage and claims a tip credit. Now, DOL is rescinding this regulation, which will allow employers more flexibility in their tip pooling practices.

On September 6, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to accord deference to the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) interpretation of its “dual jobs” regulation. The court reasoned that the interpretation, as articulated in the DOL’s Field Operations Handbook (FOH), was inconsistent with the dual jobs regulation and attempted to create a de facto new regulation. The appellate court rejected the FOH’s requirement that employers evaluate employee work on a duty-by-duty and minute-by-minute basis to determine whether an employer may take a tip credit for specific time worked. The court favored the DOL’s earlier guidance on the regulation, which instructed employers to look for a “clear dividing line” to distinguish between when an employee is engaged in a customarily tipped occupation versus a second and separate non-tipped occupation.

Finding it wholly inconsistent with the statute and the regulation it purports to interpret, the Ninth Circuit has held invalid the United States Department of Labor’s “80/20” tip credit rule, or “20% Rule,” which limits the availability of the tip credit when tipped employees spend more than 20% of their time performing allegedly non-tip generating duties.

Executive Summary: On September 6, in Marsh v. J. Alexander’s LLC, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to give deference to the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) tip-credit guidance under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The guidance—commonly known as the “80/20 rule”—provides that employers may not take a “tip credit” for time spent performing duties “related” to tip-producing activities (e.g., cleaning tables or rolling silverware) if these duties constitute more than 20 percent of the tipped employee’s time in a given week. In holding that the 80/20 rule is inconsistent with the FLSA because it improperly analyzes an employee’s duties rather than the performance of distinct jobs, the Ninth Circuit created a circuit split on this issue, and potentially paved the way for a U.S. Supreme Court decision with national impact.

Quite a bit of effort goes into making an enjoyable restaurant experience, such as good food, prompt service and, of course, cleanliness. Want to reward the dishwashers for providing you with spotless silverware, expediters for bringing out your food while it is still hot or the chef for cooking the perfect meal by leaving a generous tip? Not so fast. Cooks, expediters and other back-of-the house employees historically have not been able to legally share in the tips that are pooled and distributed among the servers, hosts and others in the front of the house.

Today the Trump Administration, through the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, released the federal government’s semi-annual Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.

Executive Summary: On June 30, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled in Marlow v. The New Food Guy, Inc. d/b/a Relish Catering (Relish) that neither the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) nor a Department of Labor (DOL) regulation requires an employer to share customers’ tips with employees so long as the employees are paid more than minimum wage.

An online ticket broker that sells tickets to concerts, sporting events, and the theater qualifies as a “retail or service establishment” under Section 207(i) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), Judge John Lee of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held. Blahnik v. Box Office Ticket Sales, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45158 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2017).

xecutive Summary: On January 9, 2017, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Navarro v. Encino Motorcars, for the second time, that service advisors at automotive dealerships are not exempt from overtime. In 2015, the Ninth Circuit relied on U.S. Department of Labor regulations to hold that service advisors are not exempt. In June 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that ruling, finding that the regulations were not entitled to deference, and directed the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the issue without regard to the DOL regulations.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2016 granted certiorari in Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro to resolve a circuit split regarding whether “service advisors” at automobile dealerships are exempt from receiving overtime under the Fair Labor Standard Act pursuant to an exemption for any “salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles.” The federal appeals court in San Francisco, deferring to a 2011 Department of Labor regulation, had held service advisors are not covered by the exemption and, therefore, are entitled to overtime.

Employers have been busily preparing in anticipation of a December 1, 2016 effective date for new federal regulations established by the Department of Labor (the “DOL”) that would have increased the requisite salary level for employees to qualify as exempt from overtime under the so-called white collar exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).Yesterday, however, a Texas Judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the scheduled increase. The injunction, which applies nationwide, was issued in connection with a legal challenge filed by 21 states and numerous business groups in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Executive Summary. In a case with far reaching implications, Cowell v. Utopia Home Care, Inc., 2:14-cv-00736-LDW-SIL, Magistrate Judge Steven Locke of the Eastern District of New York (covering Brooklyn, Queens and Long island) ruled that claims of failure to pay home care workers for hours worked and overtime are not suitable for a collective action where the workers’ conditions of employment vary so much between different home care workers and even for the same worker when working for different patients. This could prove to be a very important decision for the home care industry in New York, which has been battered by collective and class action complaints by a very active plaintiff attorneys bar. Every home care agency in New York is a potential target because home care workers can recover double damages and their attorneys’ fees if they prevail.

While Department of Labor regulations interpreting the FLSA remain the primary source of employer guidance regarding the Act’s requirements, they are not necessarily the final word on what federal wage law requires. This is so even where they have been subject to “notice and comment,” triggering a higher level of judicial deference.