(l-r) Jonathan A. Beckerman, Miguel A. Morel and Joelle C. Sharman, partners with Lewis Brisbois in Fort Lauderdale and Atlanta. Courtesy photos

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."

Turkish chef Nusret Gokce (Salt Bae).

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: