California Court of Appeal

In challenge to defendant-employer's tip-pooling requirement by plaintiff-employee card dealers, judgment for defendant is affirmed, where: 1) there was no error in excluding evidence of customers' intent; 2) Labor Code section 351 does not specifically prohibit employer-mandated tip pooling and thus defendant's policy is not illegal as a matter of law; 3) the trial court did not err in finding that any identified employees receiving tips had any supervisory authority; 4) the conversion claim fails because the dealers did not have ownership or possessory rights in the money; and 5) plaintiff's remaining claims fail as a matter of law.

Appellate Information

• Decided 01/23/2013
• Published 01/23/2013

Judges

• ELIA

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel