3 Things to Know About Connecticut's New Restaurant Wage Law
A new and controversial restaurant wage law took effect in Connecticut this week. Here's what you need to know about the law that spells out how much restaurants must pay their staff for tasks not directly related to serving diners.
January 09, 2020 at 02:02 PM
5 minute read
Gov. Ned Lamont's signing into law this week of a new wage bill for restaurants has sparked strong and opposing reactions from Connecticut employment and labor law attorneys.
At the crux of the issue is what Connecticut restaurants must pay servers for nonservice work, such as cleaning dishes and mopping floors.
The law allows restaurants to pay less than the state's $11 hourly minimum wage—and offer $6.38 an hour for waiters and other staff who serve food to customers—because these employees make up the difference in tips.
But the conflict lies in nonservice tasks, how much time servers spend performing them, and if restaurants are cheating staff of out of money due them.
Now, some attorneys say they expect widespread fallout from the new law, which could affect the rights of parties on both sides of the issue.
Here's what lawyers are saying.
1. It's now harder to file class action lawsuits over wages
The law implements new requirements for plaintiffs seeking to file suit as a class.
"The bill does add hurdles to get class certification to bring a lawsuit on behalf of a group of workers," said Pullman & Comley attorney Steve Stafstrom Jr., who also chairs the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. "There are now additional procedural requirements you have to go through."
For instance, as it stands, and pending guidelines from the state Department of Labor, the law sets new mandates that could require speedier discovery. One example: Before judges can grant class certification, the law requires litigants to show that each individual member of the proposed class performed nonservice duties and that each person was not properly compensated.
And it requires them to show this up front at the time of the request for class certification.
2. Minimum wage protections no longer in play for certain tasks?
Hartford-based employment attorney Richard Hayber said the law is a blow to workers.
The Hayber, McKenna & Dinsmore principal called the new law "decidedly anti-employee."
"This law repeals the rule that nonservice works need to be paid at the full minimum wage," Hayber said. "Restaurants can now be given free license to use servers at the $6.38 minimum wage to perform nonservice work like cleaning, stocking supplies and other things, when they should be getting $11 an hour. There is nothing here for workers."
Called a compromise bill, the law repeals the decades-old rule that nonservice work needs to be paid at the full minimum wage. The state Department of Labor is now tasked with coming up with new language to put in its place.
Connecticut AFL-CIO President Sal Luciano said "What Mr. Hayber describes will not happen."
Luciano did say the state DOL's work with stakeholders to devise new rules for service and nonservice work will ensure fairness to workers.
One of those stakeholders, the Connecticut Restaurant Association, is pleased with the new law.
"The new law is a result of months of discussions between interested parties and puts Connecticut on a path to a better, fairer and more predictable regulatory environment for local restaurants. Once these new regulations are adopted, restaurant operators will have clear rules to follow surrounding wage, which will provide protection to both the employer and employees of our industry," said Scott Dolch, executive director of the association.
Despite their different opinions, attorneys on both sides of the issue agree the current law is aimed at removing ambiguity.
"We believe this law will provide that clarity of when workers can be paid a service wage versus the standard wage," said Stafstrom, who noted that information on the state DOL website left users confused as to whether the federal 80/20 law trumped Connecticut law.
The federal rule allows restaurants to pay at the lower rate, as long as servers spent less than 20% of their time on nonservice work.
"There was confusion in the marketplace," Stafstrom said. "There were some in the restaurant business who were following the 80/20 rules because the Department of Labor guidelines were confusing."
Now state officials are taking steps, including adding staff, to ensure clarity and compliance.
3. Connecticut hired investigators. Will conduct random audits
The new law calls on the state to perform 75 random audits annually of restaurants to show they are in compliance. It also requires the state to hire three additional wage-and-hour investigators in the DOL to investigate employee complaints.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllManaging Partner Vindicated in Disciplinary Proceeding Brought by Former Associate
5 minute readConnecticut Movers: Year-End Promotions, Hires and an Office Opening
5 minute readGC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Trending Stories
- 1Tuesday Newspaper
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-85
- 3Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 4Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 5Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250