Wage & Hour Counsel : Wage & Hour Lawyer & Attorney : Littler Mendelson Law Firm : Employment Law, Labor Relations

By Chris Kaczmarek

In a case of first impression, a Massachusetts Superior Court judge recently held that an employer may adopt a policy prohibiting employees from accepting tips from customers without violating the Massachusetts Tips Law. Any such policy, however, must clearly and conspicuously be announced to customers, such that a reasonable customer would understand that any money left by the customer would not be given to employees as a tip.

In Meshna v. Scrivanos, a number of employees who worked at Dunkin’ Donuts franchises sued the owner/operator of those franchises, claiming that the stores’ no-tips policy violated Massachusetts law. The policy required employees to return tips to customers. According to the complaint, if the employee was unable to return a tip to a customer, then the employee was required to put the tip in the register to be retained by management.

The defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Massachusetts law permits employers to have a no-tipping policy. The court agreed with the defendant’s argument in principle, holding that the Massachusetts Tips Law does not prohibit “a no-tipping policy that is clearly and conspicuously announced” to customers such that a reasonable customer would understand that any money left by the customer would not be given to employees as a tip.

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Martha Keon

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provides that an employer may not: “discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to [the Act], or has testified or is about to testify in such proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an industry committee.”

The meaning of the phrase “filed any complaint” was recently clarified by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. to include unwritten, oral complaints as long as “a reasonable, objective person would have understood the employee to have put the employer on notice that the employee is asserting statutory rights under the Act.” While the Supreme Court seemed to have decided by implication whether “filed any complaint” includes internal complaints to the employer, the majority in Kasten stated that it was declining to reach the conclusion, leaving the circuit split on that issue unresolved. The Fourth Circuit took up the issue of “internal complaints” in Minor v. Bostwick Laboratories Inc. 

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Laurent Badoux

On January 27, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted AutoZone’s motion for summary judgment in a case brought on behalf of a nationwide class of current and former store managers seeking overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In so ruling, the court rejected the store managers’ argument that they were not bona fide executive employees under the FLSA.

The store managers contended they spent as much as 90% of their time working on manual (i.e., non-managerial) tasks that required rote compliance with AutoZone’s detailed, standardized policies and procedures. Therefore, the store managers contended, they were not exempt executive employees.

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Duran v. U.S. Bank National Association, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, overturned a $15 million judgment against U.S. Bank ("USB") entered in a case tried before Alameda County Superior Court Judge Robert Freedman. In its lengthy and very detailed opinion, the court shredded all the major trial management and evidentiary rulings made by the trial court, holding that its use of flawed statistical evidence and refusal to admit relevant testimony in support of USB's defense of exempt status denied USB its right to due process. In the first California appellate decision to apply the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes decision, the court determined that the trial management plan was a fatally flawed exercise in "Trial by Formula." As a final repudiation of the trial court's rulings, the Duran court also ruled that the class should be decertified. To learn more about the decision and its potential implications for employers, please continue reading Littler's ASAP, "Trial by Formula" Rejected and $15M Overtime Judgment Overturned, by Diane Kimberlin.

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Gregory B. Reilly

Employers faced with wage and hour litigation often seek to condition settlement on the agreement of plaintiffs to keep the settlement and its terms confidential. Confidentiality is often an important condition of settlement because employers may hope to avoid “copycat” claims by other employees and face the possibility that disclosure of a wage and hour settlement may be viewed by the public as an “admission” of liability.

Recently, in an unpublished decision, Brumley v. Camin Cargo Control Inc., the U.S. District Court in New Jersey refused an employer’s unopposed request to seal the terms of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) lawsuit settlement. The court stated that there is a “presumption” in favor of public access to the settlement terms so that the public knows such cases are fairly resolved.

While it is still possible, depending upon the circumstances, that employers can confidentially resolve FLSA wage and hour lawsuits, it is becoming increasingly clear that courts, as in the Brumley case, are hesitant to do so. Moreover, when an FLSA lawsuit involves a sizable number of plaintiffs, the public’s interest in disclosure of the settlement terms seems more likely to be implicated. In this respect, we note that the settlement in Brumley involved 112 plaintiffs.

Photo credit: YanC

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Joseph Lazazzero

On March 1, 2012 the minimum wage for employers in Santa Fe, New Mexico will increase to $10.29 per hour. The rate will exceed San Francisco’s $10.24 requirement, becoming the highest minimum wage in the country. The reason for the increase is a city ordinance that ties wage requirements to the consumer price index for the western United States. The consumer price index for the region saw a marked increase, as the cost of living in Santa Fe is 18 percent higher than the national average. 

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link