Labor & Employment Law

Supervisors can share in tips put into collective tip boxes

Jou Chau, a former Starbucks "barista," brought a class action against Starbucks challenging Starbucks's policy permitting certain service employees, known as shift supervisors, to share in tips that customers place in a collective tip box.

Chau sued the employer in a class action, alleging that the employer violated California Labor Code Section 351.

After certifying a class of current and former baristas and conducting a bench trial, the trial court found Chau proved the claim, and awarded the class $86 million in restitution.

The California Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the employer's policy did not violate Section 351. That section precludes an "employer or agent" from taking a tip that is "paid, given to, or left for an employee." The court determined that "[Section 351's] reference to an 'agent' obviously means a person different from the employee whose tip may not be taken."

Since the supervisors in this case are among the team members for whom tips are collectively left, the court reasoned that they are not precluded by Section 351 from receiving a share of those collective tips.

The case: Chau v. Starbucks (California Ct App 06/02/2009).

Also read:

Court of Appeal Stiffs Baristas, from What's New in Employment Law

California Court of Appeal Overturns Starbucks Tip Pooling Verdict, from California Labor & Employment Law Blog.

Full post as published by Ross' Employment Law Blog on June 02, 2009 (boomark / email).