Tip Pooling Limited to Customarily Tipped Employees

By Evan Mix, © Sheppard Mullin Mar 17, 2016
LIKE SAVE PRINT
Reuse Permissions

In a decision with important implications for employers throughout the service industry, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that employers cannot implement policies requiring tipped employees to share their tips with untipped employees. The 2-1 decision upheld a regulation issued by the federal Department of Labor (DOL) in 2011 and reversed trial court decisions to the contrary from Oregon and Nevada.

Section 203(m) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) permits an employer to fulfill part of its hourly minimum wage obligation to an employee with tips the employee receives from customers—a so-called tip credit. An employer can take a tip credit as long as it 1) notifies its employees of the practice, and 2) allows tipped employees to keep all tips they receive or to participate in a valid “tip pool” whereby tips are combined and then distributed amongst employees who are “customarily and regularly” tipped.

An employee customarily and regularly receives tips if he or she 1) has more than de minimis interaction with the customers who leave the tips, and 2) is engaged in customer service functions. The employee’s job title is irrelevant. Thus, for example, a sushi chef who serves diners directly at a counter may be a tipped employee, while a chef who works in a kitchen and does not interact with diners is not.

In 2010, the 9th Circuit ruled in Cumbie v. Woody Woo Inc. that section 203(m) did not apply to employers that do not take tip credits; as a result, such employers could use tip pools to benefit both tipped and untipped employees. The DOL responded to the Cumbie ruling in 2011 by issuing a regulation that limits tip pooling to customarily tipped employees regardless of whether their employers take tip credits. It reasoned that this was necessary to close a loophole in section 203(m) whereby employers could use tip pooling to subsidize the wages of untipped employees. In 2013, a federal district court in Oregon held the regulation invalid based on Cumbie. A district court in Nevada followed suit in 2014. 

The 9th Circuit reversed both district courts. Writing for the majority, Senior Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson wrote that Cumbie did not render the DOL regulation invalid. The majority read Cumbie to say that section 203(m) was silent regarding the tip-pooling method at issue, which gave the DOL room to issue regulations interpreting the statute. The court further held that the specific regulation under dispute was a reasonable interpretation of section 203(m) based on the statute’s legislative history.

Writing in dissent, Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith argued the majority’s ruling effectively allowed the DOL to codify its unsuccessful argument from Cumbie. The dissent argued this was both inconsistent with the precedent set by Cumbie, which interpreted section 203(m) clearly and unequivocally to permit the disputed tip-pooling method, and beyond the agency’s regulatory power, which is limited to interpreting ambiguities within the statute and not prohibiting conduct that the statute clearly allows.

Oregon Restaurant & Lodging Ass'n v. Perez, 9th Cir., No. 13-35765 (Feb. 23, 2016).

Professional Pointer: The law under this new case does not permit mandatory tip pools that include anyone who does not “customarily and regularly receive tips.” Employers—especially those in the 9th Circuit—are advised to seek legal counsel and review their tip-pooling arrangements carefully to ensure compliance with the current state of the law.

Evan Mix is an attorney in the San Diego office of Sheppard Mullin. Republished with permission. © 2016 Sheppard Mullin. All rights reserved.

LIKE SAVE PRINT
Reuse Permissions

SHRM WEBCASTS

Choose from dozens of free webcasts on the most timely HR topics.

Register Today

Job Finder

Find an HR Job Near You

SPONSOR OFFERS

Find the Right Vendor for Your HR Needs

SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies

Search & Connect