CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘Texas’

The Side Work Struggle: Nonprofit Restaurant Group Challenges The 80/20 Tip Credit Rule In Texas Federal Court

Posted on: September 19th, 2018

By: John McAvoy

On July 6, 2018, a nonprofit restaurant advocacy group filed suit against the U.S. Department of Labor in Texas Federal Court challenging the rule that governs the compensation of tipped employees; specifically, the DOL’s “80/20 Tip Credit Rule” or “20% Rule” set forth in the 2012 revision to the DOL’s Field Operations Handbook. Restaurant Law Center v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, No. 18-cv-567 (W.D. Tex. July 6, 2018).

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”), employers may pay a “tipped employee”—i.e., “any employee engaged in an occupation in which he customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips”—a cash wage of $2.13 per hour (or more) so long as the employer satisfies certain statutory criteria, including that the employee’s tips plus the cash wage equal the minimum wage. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(m), 203(t). That means tips are credited against – and satisfy a portion of – employers’ obligation to pay minimum wage. Congress has noted occupations in which workers qualify for this so-called tip credit: “waiters, bellhops, waitresses, countermen, busboys, service bartenders, etc.” S. Rep. No. 93-690, at 43 (Feb. 22, 1974).

The FLSA tip credit is not available to employers in all situations. Rather, the 80/20 Tip Credit Rule limits the use of a tip credit wage where workers spend more than 20% of their time performing secondary work not directly related to tip-generating activities. Such secondary work is universally known throughout the restaurant industry as “side work.”

Side work encompasses any and all secondary tasks restaurant employees must complete in addition to their primary responsibilities waiting tables, expediting food, bussing tables or tending bar. Side work generally includes things like rolling silverware, restocking glasses and various other items, cleaning and/or any other behind the scenes tasks necessary to ensure that restaurant operations run smoothly.

The 80/20 Tip Credit Rule provides that if a tipped employee spends more than 20% of his or her time during a workweek performing side work, i.e. duties that are not directly related to generating tips, the employer may not take a tip credit for the time spent performing those duties.

Tipped employees and employers throughout the industry share a deep-seated aversion to the 80/20 Tip Credit Rule for three (3) main reasons. First, the Rule is unclear as to what is, and what is not, an allegedly “tip generating” duty. Second, side work varies from restaurant to restaurant and shift to shift and is subject to unpredictable external conditions; most notably, the number of patrons that dine in the restaurant on any given day. For example, a bartender working the Saturday night shift in a chain restaurant may spend 95% of his or her shift serving customers, and a mere 5% on side work. However, that same bartender may open the restaurant the following day (Sunday morning) and spend 40% of his or her shift on side work from the night before, and only 60% serving customers. Third, tipped employees do not generally log their hours separately by task. As a result, tipped employees and their employers have struggled to apply the Rule. Tipped employees have to ask themselves whether they are working for less than minimum wage, and employers have to constantly wonder whether they are in compliance with the current state of the 80/20 Rule.

These issues, among others, have spawned several lawsuits challenging the 80/20 Tip Credit Rule. For example, the plaintiff in Restaurant Law Center contends, among other things, that the DOL “surreptitiously and improperly” created the 80/20 Tip Credit Rule, rather than abiding by the rulemaking process, thereby violating the Administrative Procedure Act.

Restaurant Law Center is worth mentioning because there is a split emerging among the circuit courts as to the 80/20 Tip Credit Rule’s validity. In 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the validity of the Rule. However, in September 2017, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the DOL effectively imposed new recordkeeping guidelines on employers to determine which tasks are tip generating and which are not.  In doing so, the Ninth Circuit held that the DOL had created a new regulation inconsistent with the “dual jobs” regulation. Shortly after the Ninth Circuit’s three-judge panel issued this opinion, the Ninth Circuit granted a rehearing before the full panel. Although the case was re-argued in March 2018, the full panel has yet to issue its opinion. If the Ninth Circuit upholds its prior decision, or the Fifth Circuit (where the July 6, 2018 lawsuit is pending) ultimately invalidates the 80/20 Tip Credit Rule on appeal, there will be a split among the federal appeals courts, opening the doors for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the validity and enforceability of the 80/20 Tip Credit Rule.

Needless to say, the outcome of these cases will have serious implications to the restaurant industry in all jurisdictions throughout the country.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact John McAvoy at [email protected].

Schiff Hardin Requests 5th Circuit To Dismiss Insurer’s Malpractice Suit

Posted on: April 25th, 2018

By: Barry S. Brownstein

Schiff Hardin, LLP, asserting that it has immunity under Texas law, has appealed to the Fifth Circuit seeking to end a suit filed by Ironshore Europe DAC, alleging that the law firm’s bad advice in connection with a product liability trial cost it $34 million.

Schiff Hardin defended Dorel Juvenile Group Inc. in a products liability suit over an allegedly faulty car seat. Ironshore, Dorel’s excess insurer, was not paying for the defense, but was regularly monitoring the litigation with Schiff Hardin to make sure the suit would not trigger its policy, which kicked in after $6 million in primary coverage had been exhausted.

Ironshore claimed it was blindsided when Dorel was hit with a $34 million verdict and sued Schiff Hardin for negligent misrepresentation, claiming that Schiff Hardin misrepresented the amount in which the plaintiffs were willing to settle.  In addition, Ironshore claimed that the firm repeatedly told Ironshore that the suit was going “pretty well” even into trial.  Schiff Hardin asked the panel to overturn a district court ruling allowing Ironshore to continue with some of its negligent misrepresentation claims, saying they are immune from suit for any statements made in the course of representing its client.

The district court partially granted Schiff Hardin’s motion, dismissing the claims based on predictions about the future and subjective claims about the trial by Schiff Hardin and allowing the portions of the claims based on allegations that Schiff Hardin failed to inform Ironshore of important developments in the case, such as settlement offers.

In its appeal, Schiff Hardin argued that the court had incorrectly ruled that the Texas state law that protects law firms from liability to nonclients for actions taken while representing a client has an exception for negligent misrepresentation.  That exception, according to Schiff Hardin, only applies if the damages result from an attorney acting entirely outside the scope of representing their client.

In sum, Schiff Hardin asserted that it is was immune from suit by Ironshore, since it was acting within the scope of representing Dorel when it made any alleged negligent misrepresentations or omissions, and its conduct was of the kind in which defense attorneys engage when communicating with their clients’ insurers.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Barry Brownstein at [email protected].

Has Fiduciary Rule Suffered a Fatal Blow?

Posted on: April 4th, 2018

By: Theodore C. Peters

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) defined a “fiduciary” as someone who provides investment advice for a fee.  The following year, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) promulgated regulations that provided a five-part test for assessing whether someone was a fiduciary as defined by ERISA.  Seeking to implement a uniform fiduciary rule for all retail investment accounts, the DOL issued the Fiduciary Rule on April 6, 2016.  The Fiduciary Rule re-defined who is an “investment advice fiduciary” under ERISA and heightened the fiduciary duty to a “best interest” standard for those clients with ERISA plans and IRAs.  Previously, brokers were bound only to make “suitable” recommendations.  The Fiduciary Rule also created a “Best Interest Contract Exemption” that permitted financial advisors to avoid penalties stemming from prohibited transactions so long as they contractually affirmed their fiduciary status.

Several industry groups brought suit against the DOL, opposing implementation of the Fiduciary Rule.  In 2017, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in an 81-page ruling, ruled in favor of the DOL.  Chief Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn concluded that the DOL had not exceeded its authority and had not created a private right of action for clients. On March 15, 2018, in Chamber of Commerce v. United States Department of Labor, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit invalidated the Fiduciary Rule in a 2-1 decision.

In reversing the lower court, the Court addressed a simple but critical issue: whether the DOL exceeded its rulemaking authority by expanding the definition of “investment advice fiduciary.” The Court concluded that the new definition was in conflict with ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code because it was inconsistent with the common meaning of “fiduciary.”  The Court noted that the DOL arbitrarily and improperly sought to broaden the scope of its authority through the concept of investment “advice,” that included products sold by financial salespersons and even insurance agents. Further, the Court criticized the best interest contract exemption, which permitted brokers to receive compensation for investment products they recommend (thereby creating potential conflicts), provided they agree by contract to act in the investor’s “best interests.”

By vacating the Fiduciary Rule under the Administrative Procedures Act, the Fifth Circuit effectively voided the entire rule nationwide.  The DOL could possibly request a hearing en banc before the entire Fifth Circuit, or alternatively, petition for a writ of certiorari to the United State Supreme Court.  Or perhaps, the DOL will take no action at all, in which case the Fiduciary Rule will presumably die on the vine, and the five-step test enunciated in 1975 would be resurrected. Of note, however, mere days before the Fifth Circuit’s decision, the Tenth Circuit ruled in favor of the DOL in the context of a more limited challenge to the Fiduciary Rule highlighting a split between federal circuits – which may in turn spur the DOL to seek Supreme Court review.

Regardless of what action the DOL takes, the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) is likely to seek to implement its own rules.  Commencing in October 2017, the SEC began reviewing the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule with a goal of introducing its own new rule governing investment advice.   SEC Chairman Jay Clayton testified before the Senate Banking Committee that the drafting of an SEC rule that harmonizes with the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule was a priority.  Despite the Fifth Circuit ruling, the SEC’s resolve appears to remain steadfast.  During a Q&A session at the SIFMA compliance conference just days after the ruling, Jay Clayton said “I’m not sitting on this… [and] as far as I’m concerned, we’re moving forward.”

If you have questions or would like more information, please contact Ted Peters at [email protected].