The service industry in California constantly grapples with the complexities surrounding tips, tip pooling, and mandatory service charges. Recently, on August 23, 2024, a federal appeals court blocked the Department of Labor’s (DOL) controversial 80/20/30 rule in Restaurant Law Center, Texas Restaurant Association v. United State Dept. of Labor. This rule, which created significant
Plaintiff Jacob Davis brought a putative class action against International Coffee and Tea, LLC (the company that operates Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf) alleging that the company’s tip pooling policy violated California’s Labor Code section 351. The trial court sustained Coffee Bean’s demurrer to plaintiff’s second amended complaint without leave to amend. Plaintiff appealed the
As I wrote about recently, on March 23, 2018, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 signed by President Trump changed federal law on the issue of tip pools and allows employers to share tips with back of the house employees. In connection with the new law, the Department of Labor issued a memorandum this week
In a huge development in the last couple of weeks, a change in federal law now permits California employers to include back of the house employees in tip pools. This week’s post is an update and a general discussion about issues facing restaurants, hotels, and other industries where tipping and gratuities are left for
Today’s Friday’s Five provides a few points for employers to consider who have employees that 
receive gratuities. California law is very specific regarding gratuities left for employees, and since tips are property of the employee, employers must approach this area with caution. Here are five “tips” about tips in California.
1. Tips are employee’s property.
1) Who owns a tip?
California law is clear that voluntary tips left for an employee for goods sold or services performed belong to the employee, not the employer. Labor Code section 351 provides, “No Employer or agent shall collect, take or receive any gratuity or a part thereof that is paid, given to, or
The California Supreme Court denied review of a lower appellate cou
rt decision in the class action of Chau v. Starbucks. The issue in the case is whether store managers, who as part of their duties also served customers, could share in the tips which were left for all servers. The trial court took
The $86 million trial award against Starbucks for violation of California Labor Code provisions on tips was overturned by a California appellate court (Chau v. Starbucks). The case was initiated by Jou Chau who was a former Starbucks barista. He brought a class action against Starbucks alleging that the company’s policy permitting shift supervisors
California restaurateurs received a huge victory from the Second District appellate court’s ruling in Budrow v. Dave & Buster’s Of California, Inc. The lawsuit against Dave & Buster’s alleged that its tip pool policy violated California law in that it required employees to tip out bartenders who did not provide "direct table service." The
Another California Court of appeal ruled on the issue of tip-pooling in California. In Etheridge v. Reins International California, Inc., the court held that employees who do not provide “direct table service” may participate in tip-pools mandated by employers. (This holding confirms another recent appellate court’s ruling in Budrow v. Dave & Buster’s Of California