In 2013, New York’s highest state court considered which employees are eligible to participate in sharing tips from a communal tip jar, and even if eligible, whether the employer could nonetheless exclude them from participating. The New York court held an employer may exclude employees from sharing in tips even if they would otherwise be

Presumably ending the long-running litigation regarding whether certain Massachusetts skycaps’ common law claims challenging the imposition of a $2 curbside baggage handling fee that allegedly caused a reduction in tips are preempted, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal of the First Circuit’s 2013 decision finding those claims preempted by the Airline

Joining several other recent federal court decisions, including a decision invalidating recently promulgated Department of Labor regulations purporting to address the issue, Judge Ted Stewart of the District of Utah has ruled that an employee has no claim for allegedly misappropriated gratuities under the FLSA unless the employer elected to take the tip credit

As discussed in greater detail here, the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that gratuities received by night club employees were “wages” within the meaning of Minnesota’s law prohibiting deductions, and thus an employer violated that law when it required employees to pay for “register shortages . . . walkouts . . . [and] unsigned

In a decision sure to attract attention within the New York hospitality industry, Judge Alison J. Nathan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in a case of first impression that deducting the full amount of service fees charged by internet food delivery sites (including popular web

New York employers have struggled with the New York State Department of Labor’s view that all gratuities must be distributed on a daily basis, regardless of whether they are collected in cash or via credit card and regardless of employee preference.  Late last week, without notice, the NYSDOL modified this position.  Effective immediately, New York

In Samiento v World Yacht, 10 NY3d 70 (2008), the New York Court of Appeals held that whether a labeled service charge is a “gratuity” for purposes of N.Y. Labor Law § 196-d that must be distributed to service staff depends on the “reasonable customer’s” understanding. One of the many questions unanswered by the decision