From labor disputes cases to labor and employment publications, for your research, you’ll find solutions on Bloomberg Law®. Protect your clients by developing strategies based on Litigation...
By Lisa Nagele
Sept. 23 — A car wash attendant in New York isn't entitled to summary judgment on his claim that his employer improperly benefited from the Fair Labor Standards Act tip credit because it is unclear whether three supervisors impermissibly shared in the tip pool, a federal judge ruled Sept. 19.
Judge Raymond J. Dearie of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied partial summary judgment for Leonzo Constanza Alvarado and said he must go to trial on his claim. Five Towns Car Wash Inc. produced evidence that its supervisors weren't precluded from receiving tips because they lacked the “degree of authority and control” necessary to meet the definition of “employer” under the FLSA, Dearie said.
Although the supervisors performed some managerial tasks, they may not have had ultimate decision-making authority, the judge said. Furthermore, a jury could conclude that the supervisors were employees who “customarily and regularly receive tips” because they interacted with customers while performing their duties, he said.
Alvarado also claimed the company violated the FLSA by failing to inform him that a tip credit would be applied to his wages. Employers may pay tipped employees as little as $2.13 an hour if the employee makes enough in tips to reach the $7.25 minimum wage, but employers must provide advance notice to employees. Because of conflicting testimony, the court found it couldn't “determine with certainty” that the car wash failed to provide Alvarado with proper notice.
An employer can't include tips in its FLSA minimum wage obligation “if the employer shares in the tips or if an employee who does not customarily receive tips participates in the tip pool,” the court said.
Alvarado claimed the company's tip-pooling practice violated the FLSA because three supervisors who acted as “employers” impermissibly shared tips. But the court found a genuine dispute about whether the supervisors met the definition of employer.
Although one supervisor was paid on a salary basis, this alone isn't enough to “establish his status as an employer,” the court said.
If Alvarado showed the supervisors “had durable power to hire and fire,” the court said, it may have found they acted as employers. But the company claimed its owner made final hiring and firing decisions with limited input from supervisors, the court said.
Therefore, a reasonable jury could find the supervisors didn't “act with the degree of authority and control required to impute their sharing in tips” to the company, the court found.
Furthermore, the supervisors regularly participated in washing, vacuuming, detailing and driving customer cars, the court said. Thus, a jury could also conclude they had more than “de minimis” interaction with customers and therefore were employees who “customarily and regularly receive tips,” it found.
A reasonable jury could find the supervisors didn't “act with the degree of authority and control required to impute their sharing in tips” to the company, the court found.
The FLSA also requires an employer to inform workers when it applies a tip credit to their wages, the court said.
Here, the company claimed it provided wage statements to employees and displayed posters in the workplace, the court said. Five Towns also argued that it told workers they would receive a dollar less than minimum wage and that the tip credit would account for the difference.
Alvarado presented evidence to refute the company's claims, but that established the dispute instead of resolving it, the court held.
Helen F. Dalton & Associates P.C. represented Alvarado. Milman Labuda Law Group PLLC represented Five Towns Car Wash.
To contact the reporter on this story: Lisa Nagele in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Susan J. McGolrick at firstname.lastname@example.org
Text of the opinion is available at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Alvarado_v_Five_Town_Car_Wash_Inc_et_al_Docket_No_113cv01672_EDNY.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)