Restaurant Wage-and-Hour Disputes Are on the Rise
Examples of wage-and-hour lawsuits include allegations of paying below minimum wage, violating tip pooling rules and recording only 40 hours on time cards in order to avoid overtime pay.
October 15, 2019 at 12:10 PM
4 minute read
A growing number of South Florida restaurants are facing costly wage-and-hour lawsuits for failure to comply with federal and state employment laws. In fact, across the country, employers were hit with 8,261 FLSA lawsuits in 2017—a sharp rise in the past 20 years, since only 1,597 FLSA lawsuits were filed in 1997. Recent examples include allegations of paying below minimum wage, violating tip pooling rules and recording only 40 hours on time cards in order to avoid overtime pay.
In these types of cases, employers run the risk of serious financial penalties, whether their actions are due to ignorance or a willful disregard of the law. Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which establishes minimum wage, overtime pay and record-keeping rules, an employee's claim can go back three years, raising the amount in dispute. If the employee prevails in court, the restaurant owner could pay double the amount of lost pay, plus reasonable attorney fees and court costs.
|Be Proactive
Restaurant owners and managers need to be sure they understand current state and federal employment laws and comply with those requirements.
Here are several common mistakes South Florida restaurants make when it comes to wage-and-hour compliance:
- Exempt vs. nonexempt employees. Under the FLSA, managers, professionals and executives are typically exempt from overtime rules. However, an employer cannot arbitrarily place a restaurant employee into the exempt category to avoid paying overtime— that would be a violation of the FLSA.
- Overtime pay. Nonexempt employees who work more than 40 hours in a scheduled workweek are entitled to overtime pay. However, some employers have tried to avoid overtime by paying employees off the books, not allowing them to clock-in for overtime or simply ignoring the rules.
- Independent contractors. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has specific criteria for determining if a worker is an employee, who would be covered by the FLSA, or an independent contractor. Unless hired to be paid a flat amount for the completion of a specific project, it's likely that a worker would be considered an employee.
- Minimum wage. In Florida, the full minimum wage is now $8.46 per hour. However, a restaurant server or bartender could be paid as little as $5.44 an hour plus tips, giving the employer a credit of $3.02 per hour. If the server's tips fall short, though, the employer must pay the difference.
- Tip pools. Employers in Florida are allowed to create tip pools for their employees who regularly receive tips from patrons. That money can be shared with other staffers who customarily and regularly receive tips, such as waiters, waitresses, bussers, but not with employers, managers or supervisors. To avoid potential claims, employers need to have a written policy regarding tip pool participation and processes, and be sure that their employees follow those rules.
Other Employment Issues
Along with FLSA issues, restaurants face other types of employee claims, such as sexual harassment. While it's natural for personal contact to occur in the close working conditions of a restaurant, the employer needs to be alert for any incidents involving sexual suggestions, inappropriate touching or other types of harassment—particularly in the #MeToo era.
To reduce potential liability, employers should have a formal anti-harassment policy, provide training to supervisors and managers and establish an independent line of reporting for employees. These actions can also defuse any plaintiff claims about a hostile work environment.
In summary, it is far better to take a proactive approach and defuse potential wage-and-hour disputes, sexual harassment incidents or other employment issues in advance, rather than having to defend a costly lawsuit.
Antoinette Theodossakos is counsel in the labor & employment practice at Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr. Based in the firm's West Palm Beach office, she advises corporations, entrepreneurs and nonprofit institutions on a broad range of labor and employment issues. Contact her at antoinette. [email protected].
|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 AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
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