South Florida, Atlanta Lawyers Clinch Victory for Internet-Famous 'Salt Bae' in Class Action Over Restaurant Tips
The class action was against Nusret Gokce, commonly known as Salt Bae, and his restaurants, seeking unpaid wages.
June 05, 2020 at 04:54 PM
4 minute read
That 18% service charge on a Brickell restaurant's check isn't a tip for the server, a federal judge ruled in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The case hinged on whether the service charge on a restaurant bill counted as a tip for the service staff at Nusr-Et Steakhouse in Brickell, who were seeking minimum wage plus overtime. The case turned on whether the service charge was the sole compensation for the service staff as dictated by federal law.
Attorneys Jonathan A. Beckerman, Miguel A. Morel and Joelle C. Sharman, who are partners at Lewis Brisbois in Fort Lauderdale and Atlanta, prevailed for their client—Nusr-Et Steakhouse and its owner, Nusret Gokce, commonly known as Salt Bae after his seasoning technique became an Internet meme—in a class-action lawsuit that sought unpaid wages.
One of the main challenges with lawsuits involving Nusr-Et Steakhouse is that the international restaurant chain has operations in the United States and around the world. That means employees in several countries may have been class members. That factor caused extensive discovery requests for Beckerman and his team.
"We were getting overwhelmed with the amount of paper documents that these guys were just trying to throw at us to make facts and issues that didn't exist," Beckerman said. "Thousands of pages of documents. Any document that was ever generated with the company's financial picture, they wanted."
The lead plaintiff in the case, Melissa Compere, was a server at the Nusr-et restaurant at 999 Brickell Ave., Miami.
Her attorney Lowell J. Kuvin, a partner at the Law Office of Lowell J. Kuvin in Miami, did not respond to a request for comment
Compere argued that the 18% service charge included on a customer's dinner receipt was a tip, and that she was also entitled to be paid both the minimum hourly wage plus overtime for any week in which she worked more than 40 hours.
U.S. District Court Judge Raag Singhal disagreed and ruled in the restaurant's favor, granting its motion for summary judgment.
"A lot of the service staff were paid in excess of six figures per year, so they weren't getting paid an hourly rate and weren't getting paid overtime," Beckerman said. "They were claiming the service charges were 'tips,' which would be a violation of the law if that was the case."
Beckerman said having the service charge distributed to restaurant workers as their sole compensation is a "completely legal practice," citing federal law — the Retail Sales Exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act — that Beckerman argued allows an employer not to pay overtime. "If they pay workers enough for commission, no minimum wage," he said.
There are three main rules to exempt an employer from overtime, according to section 7(i) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. First, an employee must earn at least one and one-half times the federal minimum wage. The second rule is that the employee must earn more than half of his or her salary in commissions for a period of not less than one month. The third requirement is the employee must work for a retail or service establishment.
Beckerman argued that the service charge was distributed to the staff at the restaurant based upon a point system, and that was all of the compensation they received. For instance, Beckerman said, if an employee was working as a person who picks up plates and served water, that person might get one point. The main server who took the orders and brought wine to the table would earn three points.
"There's a formula at the end of the night," Beckerman said. "They identify how many people were working, the points they were entitled to and distribute the money based on that payment system. So each point entitled them to a percentage of the overall proceeds from the service charges. [The service people] divide up the overall proceeds from the service charges."
|Read the full order on the defendants' motion for summary judgment:
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 AllDid 17 Drinks Lead to Woman's Death? Lawsuit Blames Casino
Not a Happy Birthday: Woman Sues Kyle G's Prime Seafood & Steaks After Severe Food Allergic Reaction
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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