Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a lawsuit filed by an employee against her employer, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiff claims she was improperly compensated at a tip-credit wage for non-tipped work, exceeding 20% of her workweek, and that the employer failed to inform her of the FLSA's tip-credit provisions. The court evaluated these claims under the framework of a motion to dismiss, assessing whether the plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to establish a plausible entitlement to relief. The court determined that the dual jobs and substantial work claims were justiciable under the FLSA, emphasizing that employers may not apply a tip credit to non-tipped work comprising more than 20% of an employee's duties. The court also addressed the Department of Labor's Field Operations Handbook, which supports the substantial work claim, and deferred to its interpretation. However, the plaintiff's failure to inform claim was dismissed due to an undisputed signed notice. The court denied the employer's motion to dismiss on the dual jobs and substantial work claims, allowing the case to proceed on these grounds.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Tip Credit under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that employers can only apply a tip credit for hours worked in tipped occupations, not for untipped tasks, if over 20% of work time is spent on such tasks.
Reasoning: If tipped employees spend over 20% of their time on untipped duties, the employer cannot claim a tip credit for that time.
Dual Jobs Regulation under FLSAsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court recognized the viability of dual jobs claims where employees perform both tipped and untipped work, and employers cannot apply a tip credit to untipped work when it exceeds 20% of work time.
Reasoning: Plaintiffs must demonstrate they routinely undertake tasks unrelated to their tipped occupation to assert a dual jobs claim.
Interpretation of FLSA Regulations and Judicial Deference to Agency Interpretationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found the dual jobs regulation to be ambiguous and deferred to the Department of Labor’s reasonable interpretation as articulated in the Field Operations Handbook.
Reasoning: The court emphasizes its obligation to defer to an agency's interpretation unless it is clearly erroneous or inconsistent.
Requirement to Inform Employees under FLSA Section 203(m)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court dismissed the Failure to Inform claim based on the existence of a signed notice acknowledging the tip credit provisions, which the plaintiff did not dispute.
Reasoning: The court denies High 5’s Motion to Dismiss, except for McLamb's failure to inform claim, which is dismissed based on a signed notice from May 6, 2013, that McLamb does not dispute.
Substantial Work Claim under Department of Labor’s Field Operations Handbooksubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court deferred to the Department of Labor’s interpretation that substantial untipped work exceeding 20% of the workweek supports a substantial work claim.
Reasoning: The court concurs with the Eighth Circuit that the dual jobs regulation is ambiguous and that the FOH’s sub-regulation offers a reasonable interpretation of this ambiguity.