United States Second Circuit

Reset A A Font size: Print

Barenboim v. Starbucks Corp., Winans v. Starbucks Corp., 10-4912, 11-3199

In appeals heard in tandem from awards of summary judgment in favor of defendant Starbucks Corp. against a) putative class of baristas in Case 10-4912 holding that N.Y. Labor Law section 196-d did not prohibit distributing pooled tips to shift supervisors who were not deemed "agents" under the statute, and b) putative class of Assistant Store Managers (ASMs) in Case 11-3199 holding that section 196-d did not require including ASMs in its tips pools, the Court defers decision and certifies the questions of: 1) the meaning of the word "agents" under the N.Y. statute, 2) whether Department of Labor’s New York State Hospitality Wage Order applies, and if so, does it apply retroactively; and 3) whether an employer may exclude an otherwise eligible tip-earning employee from receiving distributions from a common tip pool under N.Y. labor law.

Appellate Information

  • Decided 10/23/2012
  • Published 10/23/2012

Judges

  • RAGGI

Court

  • United States Second Circuit

Counsel