Belt v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc.
Decision Date | 15 August 2019 |
Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION No. 18-3831 |
Citation | 401 F.Supp.3d 512 |
Parties | Steven BELT, et al., Plaintiffs. v. P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Benjamin L. Davis, III, Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl, Baltimore, MD, Dana L. Scott, Office of General Counsel, Philadelhia, PA, Jay E. Eidsness, Reena I. Desai, Nicholas Kaster, PLLP, Minneapolis, MN, Patricia A. Barasch, Schall & Barasch, Moorestown, NJ, for Plaintiffs.
Paul DeCamp, Maxine Adams, Epstein Becker & Green P.C., Washington, DC, Sheila A. Woolson, Epstein Becker & Green PC, Newark, NJ, for Defendant.
Plaintiffs Steven Belt, Laura Council, and James Harris bring a putative class and collective action against P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc. ("P.F. Chang's"), alleging wage and overtime violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act1 ("PMWA"), 43 Pa. Stat. Ann. §§ 333.104(a), 333.104(c) and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207(a).2 P.F. Chang's moves for judgment on the pleadings.3 I will deny P.F. Chang's motion.
P.F. Chang's operates hundreds of restaurants throughout the United States. Compl. ¶ 8. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, Plaintiffs were employed as Servers at various P.F. Chang's restaurants.5 Compl. ¶ 30.
Plaintiffs were required to perform three different categories of work: tipped work, untipped work related to their occupation as Servers, and work unrelated to their occupation as Servers.6 Plaintiffs' tipped work included "serving food and drinks to patrons," "wait[ing] on tables and describ[ing] daily specials," "regularly check[ing] on patrons throughout their meal," and collecting payment from customers. Compl. ¶ 30. P.F. Chang's also required Plaintiffs to perform work that did not give them the ability to earn tips because it "did not involve interacting with, nor serving food and beverages to customers." Compl. ¶ 31. This untipped work included both tasks related to Plaintiffs' employment as Servers, and tasks unrelated to Plaintiffs' employment as Servers.7 The untipped work included:
Compl. ¶¶ 32-34. Plaintiffs' schedules varied, but they routinely worked between twenty and fifty hours each week, in six- to ten-hour shifts. Compl. ¶ 44. During each shift, Plaintiffs spent approximately thirty to fifty percent of their time performing work that did not give them the opportunity to earn tips. Compl. ¶ 45.
Plaintiffs were paid at the tip-credit minimum wage rate—as opposed to the full minimum wage rate—for the entirety of the hours worked for P.F. Chang's.8 Compl. ¶¶ 38-40. They were paid at the tip-credit rate for both their tipped and untipped work. Compl. ¶ 47.
The Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), a Department of Labor ("DOL") regulation known as the "Dual Jobs regulation," and a DOL policy document called the Field Operations Handbook ("FOH") set forth the framework for determining when an employer is excused from paying an employee the full minimum wage. I will discuss each of these instruments in turn.
The original FLSA, enacted in 1938, requires employers to pay a minimum hourly wage. 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1)(C). In 1966, the FLSA was amended to also allow an employer, under certain circumstances, to utilize the tips of a "tipped employee" to meet its minimum wage obligations. See Fair Labor Standards Act, Pub. L. 89-601, 80 Stat. 830 (1966). Section 203(m) of the FLSA provides:
Therefore, the FLSA does not preclude an employer from paying a tipped employee a cash wage of $2.13 per hour provided that the employee's tips make up the difference between the $2.13 cash wage and the current federal minimum wage. Id. Section 203(t) of the FLSA defines a "tipped employee" as "any employee engaged in an occupation in which he customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips." 29 U.S.C. § 203(t). The difference between the cash wage and the federal minimum wage is known as the "tip credit." See 29 C.F.R. § 531.56(d).
Beginning in 1967, the DOL promulgated several regulations to address the 1966 FLSA Amendments. This included a regulation addressing the tip-credit provision in Section 203(m), and importantly, it sought to interpret the definition of "tipped employee" set forth in Section 203(t). See 32 Fed. Reg. 222 (Jan. 10, 1967) (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking); 32 Fed. Reg. 13575 (Sept. 28, 1967) (Promulgation of Final Rule).
The 1967 regulation concerning the tip-credit provision recognizes that an employee may be engaged in two occupations for the same employer but may only qualify as a "tipped employee" in one of those occupations. See 29 C.F.R. § 531.56(e) ("Dual Jobs regulation"). In this situation, an employer may only take the tip credit for the hours an employee spends in the occupation for which he qualifies as a "tipped employee." Id. The Dual Jobs regulation states:
Beginning in 1980, the DOL issued several statements and documents endeavoring to clarify the Dual Jobs regulation. First, the DOL released opinion letters in 1980 and 1985 addressing restaurant servers who spent part of their time performing untipped related duties. The language of the 1980 letter reiterated that when servers only "occasionally" or "part of [the] time" perform untipped related duties, a tip credit may be taken for time spent on those duties. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Wage & Hour Div., Opinion Letter WH-502 (Mar. 28, 1980), 1980 WL 141336. The 1980 letter also stated that the DOL "might have a different opinion if the facts indicated that specific employees were routinely assigned, for example, maintenance-type work such as floor vacuuming." Id. In the 1985 opinion letter, the DOL stated that when a waiter spent 30 to 40 percent of his or her time performing "preparatory activities" before the restaurant opened—such as setting tables, cleaning and filling salt shakers, and checking supplies of napkins and straws—no tip credit could be taken for this time, because it consumed a "substantial" portion of the waiter's workday. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Wage & Hour Div., Opinion Letter FLSA-854 (Dec. 20, 1985), 1985 WL 1259240.
Next, in 1988, the DOL added a section to the Field Operations Handbook ("Handbook") addressing the Dual Jobs regulation. This section read:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Berger v. Perry's Steakhouse of Ill., LLC
...F. Supp. 3d 976 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 2, 2019), Spencer v. Macado's, Inc. , 399 F.Supp.3d 545 (W.D. Vir. 2019), Belt v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc. , 401 F.Supp.3d 512 (E.D. Penn. 2019), and Flores v. HMS Host Corp. , 2019 WL 5454647 (D. Md. Oct. 23, 2019). Further, although the 80/20 rule is ......
-
Pierce v. Electric Boat Corp.
...Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-844 (1984); Helen Mining Co. v. Elliott, 859 F.3d 226 (3d Cir. 2017); Belt v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., 401 F.Supp.3d 512, 527 (E.D. Pa. 2019). "If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation of authority to the ag......
-
Pierce v. Electric Boat Corp., BRB 18-0609
...§939(a). The promulgated regulation, 20 C.F.R. §702.601(b), fills the gap in Section 2(10). See Helen Mining, 859 F.3d at 235; Belt, 401 F.Supp.3d at 528. 702.601(b) states, in pertinent part: With regard to an occupational disease for which the time of injury, as defined in §702.601(a), oc......
-
Sicklesmith v. Hershey Entm't & Resorts Co.
...and untipped work before he or she becomes an employee engaged in two occupations. (Id. at 17 (citing Belt v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc. , 401 F.Supp. 3d 512 (E.D. Pa. 2019) )). Because the 2018 Interpretation places, in essence, no limit on the amount of related and untipped work a ti......
-
MDMA AND PSILOCYBIN FOR MENTAL HEALTH: DECONSTRUCTING THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT'S USAGE OF "CURRENTLY ACCEPTED MEDICAL USE".
...of the issue."). (208.) Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400, 2416 (2019). (209.) Id. (210.) Ferrara, supra note 138, at 236. (211.) 401 F. Supp. 3d 512, 531 (E.D. Pa. (212.) See Petitioner's Brief at 68-69, Sisley v. DEA, No. 20-71433 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2021). (213.) See Whitman v. United Stat......