Melgar Morataya v. Nancy's Kitchen of Silver Spring, Inc. et al, No. 8:2013cv01888 - Document 56 (D. Md. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 7/17/2015. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
Melgar Morataya v. Nancy's Kitchen of Silver Spring, Inc. et al Doc. 56 IN TIlE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND SOllthem Dh'i.~ioll * .IESSICA MARLENE MORATAYA, ,'. MELGAR * * Plaintiff, Case No.: (;.IH-I3-01888 * NANCY'S KITCHEN SPRING, INC., et a/, OF SILVER * * Defendants. * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM This is a wage violation against her former employer. Kitchen") U.S.c. ~ 20 * Defendant J 1'1self" Nancy's the Maryland Judgment. the Court found Ihat Defendants * Kitchen of Silver Spring. Inc. ("Nancy's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Wage and Iiour Law C'MWIII."). Act Md. Codc. Wage Payment and Collection Md. Code. LE ~ 3-501 1'1self. Pending bef()re the Court is Plaintiffs Motion fbr Parlial Summary U.S.c. * * OI'INION Lab. & Empl. Article ("LE") ~ 3-401 1'1self .. and the Maryland Law ("MWPCL"). * case brought by Plaintiff Jessica Marlene Melgar Morataya and its owner. Roy Barreto. for purportcd C'FLSA ").29 * * See lOCI' No. 52. In ruling on Plaintilrs Second previous motion. were not entitled to a tip credit under the FLSA. specilically ~ 203(m). to offset against their minimum wage and overtime obligations. See 29 Eel' No. 44. Plaintilrs issue. PlainlilTnow Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment asks thc Court to lind that Delcndants' only fail to qualify as a tip credit. but also cannot otherwise seeks to further sharpen the weekly cash payments satisfy Delcndants' to PlaintilTnot FI.SA obligations. payments I See ECF No. 52 at I. Defendants. on the other hand. assert that the weekly cash they gave to Plaintiff should lilctor into I'laintilrs hourly wagc calculations becausc they were not tips. See ECF No. 53 at I. A hearing was held on Junc 16. 2015. See Loc. R. 105.6 (Md.). For the reasons outlined is GRANTED. I. below. Plaintiffs in part. and DENIED. Sccond Motion for Partial Summary Judgmcnt in part. BACKGROUND Nancy's Kitchen is a restaurant located at 3808 Intcrnational See ECF No. 39-2. PlaintilTalieges Maryland. Drivc. Silvcr Spring. that shc began working !()r Nancy's Kitchen around 2007. See ECF No. 39- II at ~ 2. She lirst worked as a busser. c1caring tables. and bcgan working as a server around 2010 or 201 I. See ECF No. 53-3 at 22-26. individuals worked as servers lor Nancy's Only two or thrce Kitchen during the relevant time pcriod. See ECF No. 53-2 at 12. In the course of discovery !()r this case. I'lainti ITwas deposed. she was a server. she was never permitted She testi Iicd that. whilc to keep the tips she received from customers. See ECF No. 41-4 at 6. Instead. she was required to take tips to Mr. Barreto. the owner of Nancy's Kitchen. or put them in a designated bag. which was called the "kitty'" See iii. I'laintilTtestilied that Mr. Barreto decided how the tips from the kitty were divided. See iii. at 8. Mr. Barreto was also deposed. In slight contrast to I'laintilI he stated that I'laintiIT\\'as to keep her tips ifshe worked alone because ..that's her tip. she keeps it." See ECF No. permitted 53-2 at 4. But if Plaintiff was not alone. she was required to put her tips in the kitty. See ECF No. 39-7 at J 7 & 20. Mr. Barreto explained in separate envelopes. that everyone See ECF No. 53-2 at 3. Specilically. PlaintilTalso requests that the Court determine should be compensated. See ECF No. 52 at 2. I who worked together then received money he said ... [tJhe people who are the months Plaintilrworked 2 and I()r which she I working as a team, they get [an envelopel, including the credit card, whatever This daily amount was paid weekly in cash. Srr ECF No. 53-3 at 22-26. that he gave tip money to Plaintiff: John Fernandes is put in:' Srr id Mr. Barreto indicated (another server), and possibly a busser. Srr ECF No. 39-7 at 20. Mr. Barreto also said that tips paid by credit card all go "to thc bank and then I make the envelopes based on whatever moncy I colleet." lOCI' No. 53-2 at 6. When Mr. Barreto was again asked to clarify how he treated the tips put into the kitty, Mr. Barreto said. ,.[tlhose are being given as tip credit." Sre lOCI' No. 42-1 at 15. This, aecording to Mr. Barreto, is ,,[ tlhe timc they work, plus the tip for thc whole day, it gets shared:' !d lie also said he used the money from the kitty, in part. to purchase goods used at the restaurant. ECF No. 53-2 at 19. At another point in the deposition. the kitty were distributed make the envelopes to employees: and gave employees amount of tips given to the employees, amount each day regardless explained that"[ilt See he once again agreed that the tips from he said he kept the money Irom the kitty to the side to the tip credit2 See id at 12-16. When asked about the Mr. Barreto testilied of the amount of tips in the kitty. isjust a fixed amount. They've that he paid the employees a fixed "iee lOCI' No. 53-2 at 7. iVlr. Ilarreto been told, because I told her earlier. business In fact, Mr. Barreto talked about the money Ii'om the tip kitty often during his deposition and was consistent that the money from the kitty was used, in part. to pay employees a ,.tip credit." When asked what he did with the tips, Mr. Barreto said "'i]t is a kitty, so I make - - I give them envelopes every week .. :' See ECF No. 39-7 at 20. Again, when asked if he gave the servers an envelope with cash containing the tips, Mr. Barreto responded .., !lhe tip credit. the money which collects:' See lOCI' No. 53-2 at 6. At another point. Mr. Barreto explained that the cash placed in the kitty was not treated as revenue but placed to the side to pay the employees ..tip credit." See ECF No. 39-7 at 21-22. He also said that he collects all money fi.,r the day as re\'enue and then makes the tip credit distribution. See id at 21. In addition, in answering interrogatories. Defendants stated that the tips were treated as revenue and, in lieu of tips, the servers were gi\'en a set amount per day. See ECF No. 39-2. Despite the repeated reference to tips during discovery, Mr. Barreto provided the Court with an allidavit attached to Defendants' opposition to PlaintiJrs first motion for partial summary judgment. where he explained that the daily pay rale did not come from tips but IrOill the restaurant's general operating account. Ser ECF No. 41-3. 2 can be slow or busy. There could be. - ifit"s slow. I take the bullet: if it's busy. it"s okay. Imix it up. howcvcr I can make them happy to \\-ark there." See id at 19. According to Mr. Barreto. the daily payments would have received her wage to $65 a day on the wcekends. purporting how PlaintilTwas to show Plaintitrs ECF No. 53-3 at 22-26. The spreadshcet accountant. to concern about whether she was rcceiving enough tip money and Mr. Further explaining spreadsheet the amount Plainti IT ifshe had kept all of her tips. See ECF No. 53.2 at 21. According Plaintiff: she expressed Barreto inereased equalcd or exceeded Agnelo Gonsalvcs. See ECF No. 41-4 at 13. paid. Defendants have provided the Court with a hours and pay /i'om December 20]0 to July 2013. See appears to havc becn created by thc restaurant's See ECF No. 39.15 at 6. The spreadshcet also appears to IHI\'e bcen crcatcd alicr the filet and not eontcmporancouslyJ See ECF No. 39.15 at 6-7. In 2010. when Plaintiff was working as a busser. thc spreadsheet indicates that she was paid $7.25 per hour. See ECF No. 53-2 at 22-26. In March 2011. when she became a server. PlaintilTbegan receiving $4.00 per hour. See hi. In July 2013. her hourly wage was increased to $4.15 per hour. See id The spreadsheet notes what portion of I'laintifl's portion was paid by check. See id The spreadsheet payments" and indicates See id The spreadsheet hourly wage was paid in cash and \\'hat also contains a column entitled "other cash that Plaintiff received between $540 and $660 in cash every two weeks. also shows the amount of tips PlaintitTreported for each pay period. See id Plaintiffs employmcnt with Defendants cnded on July 12.2013. See ECF No. 53-2 . stated that he used Plaintiffs W-2 documents. Plaintiffs veritied complaint. and Mr. statements rcgarding how paymcnts werc made to create the spreadshects. See ECF . Gonsalves 1 Barreto's No. 39-15 at 6-7. 4 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material the movant is entitled to judgment lact and as a mailer of law. Meson \'. GA 7X Tech. Sen's. Corp.. 507 F3d 803. 806 (4th Cir. 2(07): see a/so Fed. R. Civ. 1'. 56(a). A genuine issue of material exists when ..the evidence party:' is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict lor the nonmoving Anderson \'. Liber1y Lobby. Inc.. 477 U.S. 242.248 burden of demonstrating fact (1986). The moving party bears the that no genuine dispute exists with regard to material Plil/ial/l laets. In\'. Co. \'. Cal/leo Props .. 810 F.2d 1282. 1286 (4th Cir. 1987). Notably. the moving party can demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fl\et by establishing absence of evidence in support of the nonmoving admissible evidence to support the nonmoving party to identify specific facts showing A1/1. Ins. Co .. 241 F.R.D. 534,535 Celli/ex Corp. \'. Calrel/, 477 party's case:' U.S. 317, 325 (1986). If the party seeking summary judgment demonstrates evidentiary materials for the party opposing III. presented that there is no party's case, the burden shins to the nonmoving that there is a genuine issue for trial. Lorraine \'. Markel (D. Md. 20(7). However. or."nne the "mere existence alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise motion for summary judgment." that "there is an properly supported Ant/ason. 477 U.S. at 247-48 (cmphasis in original). The must show facts Irom which the Illct linder could reasonably summary judgment. find Id. at 250-51. DISCUSSION Plaintiff alleges. in part. violation of the FLSA' s minimum requirements. wage See ECF NO.4. In this second motion for partial summary judgment. argucs that there is no genuine dispute over the wage Defendants Defendants and overtime paid PlaintilTand. violated the FLSA as a mailer of law. See ECF No. 52-I. Delcndants 5 Plaintiff as a result. argue that there is a genuine dispute over Plaintiffs wage. and relatedly. over whether Defendants \'io!ated the FLSA's minimum and overtime wage requirements. See ECl' No. 53 at I. Thus. the Court must look at three issues. First. whether the tip credit provision of the l'LSA is applicablc to this casc: second. whether Defendants' payment arrangcment with PlaintilTviolatcd the tip credit provision. and. as a result. the l'LSA's minimum wage rcquiremcnt: and third. whcther Plaintiff is owed the difference between the required minimum wage and the hourly wage she \\'as paid. A. The applicability Under 29 U.S.C. of 29 U.S.c. ~ 203(m) * 206. an employer must pay its employees at least $7.25 an hour. However. an employer is permitted to receive a ..tip credit" f()r a tipped employee. which is defined as any employee engaged in an occupation in which she customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips. See 29 U.S.c. * 203(t). Under * 203(m). a tipped employee may be paid as low as $2.13 per hour as long as the hourly cash wage and the tips the employee receives equate to at least the prevailing minimum wage. See 29 U.S.C. * 203(m). In essence. for l'LSA purposes. thc employer is given a credit lor the differencc bctwcen thc minimum wage and the hourly wage it was paying if the employer complies with thc provisions * 203(m). Specifically. * 203(m) requires that the employee be informed of this provision and that the employee retain all tips received. See 29 U.s.C. * 203(m): see "/.1'0 29 C.l'.R. * 513.59. of In this case. the Court has already rulcdthat Defendants are not entitled to rcceive a tip credit. See ECl' No. 44. Defendants now assert that * 203(m) simply docs not apply and thaI the cash payments. while not a tip credit. still count toward the calculation of Plaintiirs minimum wagc. See ECF No. 53-1 at 2-4. According to Delendants. if the cash payments arc included. thcy paid PlaintilTmore than minimum wage. See ill. at 4-5. They elaim that Plaintiffs "direct wage" was divided into two parts-an hourly wage and a daily wage. See ill. at 4. Defendants insist that the 6 daily wage was not meant to be a redistribution of tips but rather a second method of payment. See id. Without assuming belies Defendants' Plaintiffs that Defendants' argument argument on lactual grounds. anything employees. employee tips and then redistributed in the record contradicts Delendants' was not meant to be tip money. The spreadsheets was paid an hourly rate 01'$7.25 (minimum which was later increased wage consistent repeatedly and in some of those tips to the that the daily amount paid by Defendants indicates tending to support Delendants' Indeed. Delendants her hourly wage was decreased who is being partially compensated show that Plaintiff below minimum by tips. Further. that she believed that the "daily rate" she received was based on her tips. ECF No. 41-4 at 11-13. Conversely. Plaintiff submitted argument to $4.15. alier she became a server. ECF No. 53-2 at 22-26. Thus. with an employee testimony compensate indicates. wage) when she was not a server and $4.00 per hour. when Plaintiff became a "tipped employee:' purpose. testimony See in/;'o at 2--4. Other evidence Plaintiffs that the daily wage paid to Plaintiff other than tips. Rather. Mr. Barreto's a variety of ways. that he collected with the law. the evidence Indeed. !\Ir. BaiTeto never stated before lirst motion for partial summary judgment represented is consistcnt argument there is not a scintilla of evidence in the record that the daily amount paid to PlaintilTwas Illr any other lail to explain the number of hours that the daily wage was to lor working. Thus. Defendants have Itliled to produce evidence that would create a dispute of lact that this daily rate was anything other than a way to redistribute tips. Defendants cannot tip toe around the FLSA's 7 requirements fllr tipped employees employee by creating an atter-the-fact elaborate pay systcm that includes both hourly and daily wagcs. typc of pay system would bc pennittcd a qucstion if actually uscd by an cmploycr Whcthcr this to pay minimum wagc is fiJI' anothcr day. B. Defendants' payment system Understanding that Plaintiff was paid Icss than $7.25 per hour and was paid an additional Ilat sum as tips. 29 U.S.c. pennits an employcr ~ 203(m) is applicable to pay a tipped employcc hour. plus tips (the cmployers 203(m). This statutory pcrmit employees to this casc. As discusscd a lower hourly ratc. but not Icss than 52.13 per 29 receivc a tip crcdit Il)r up to 55.12 per hour). S~~ U.s.c. provision comes with requircmcnts. inll)[Incd that thcir hourly wagc is bcing decrcascd. "cven ifthc employec reccivcd tips at least equivalcnt Sih-er I'alac~ R~sl.. IlIc .. 246 r.supp. IlIc .. 28 F.3d 40 1.404 (3d Cir.1(94) liability for full minimum must must bc ~ 203(m): s~~ also 29 C.F.R. ~ and rctaining all tips) must bc satislicd to thc minimum 2d 220. 229 (S.D.N.Y. (revcrsing and thc cmployccs S~~ 29 U.S.c. of ~ 203(m) (knowledgc ~ Undcr ~ 203(m). thc cmployers to retain all tips receivcd by thc cmployccs. 513.59. Thc two requircmcnts abovc. ~ 203(m) wagc." Chullg \'. N~\l' 2002) (citing R~ich \'. Ch~::.Roh~1'f. district court's equitable reduction of cmployer's wagc whcrc notice of intcnt to takc tip crcdit was not givcn): ami ~ Dcfendants arguc that Mr. Barrcto did providc an affidavit attach cd to its opposition to Plaintilrs lirstmotion for partial summary judgmcnt indicating that thc daily ratc did not comc from the tip kitty and hc bascd thc daily rate on duration. quality. and value of service. S~~ IOcr No. 53-1 at 3. Howcver. thesc statcmcnts Ilatly contradict his dcposition tcstimony that thc tip moncy from the kitty was dividcd among thc employces to providc thcm with a "tip crcdit". without any explanation 1'01' hc contradiction. Thus. this completc contradiction of prcvious t testimony cannot bc uscd to crcatc a disputc of fact in thc lacc of a summary judgmcnt motion. Zi/llll1~r/llall \'. Nal'llrlis I'harll1. Corp .. 387 F.R.D. 357. 361 (D. Md. 2012) ("Undcr thc sham affidavit doctrine. 'a party cannot create a gcnuine issuc of lact sufficicnt to surviVl: summary judgmcnt simply by contradicting his or hcr own prcvious sworn statemcnt (by. say. filing a later affidavit thatllatly contradicts that party's earlier sworn deposition) without \'. cxplaining the contradiction or attempting to rcsolvc the disparity .... ) (citing (J~\'~/al1" I'oli(\' Mgll1l .• ~l's. Corp .. 526 U.S. 795.806 (1999)). s~~ 8 Marlill \'. Tallgo's Restal/rallt. IlIc.. 969 r:.2d 1319. 1323 (I st Cir.1992) ("It may at tirst seem odd to award baek pay against an employer ... where the employee retained base wages and tips that together amply satisty the minimum Congress has in seetion [20]3(m) expressly courts have entorced Employers arrangement" has aetually reeeived and wage requirements. required notice as a condition Yet of the tip credit and thc that requirement.")). may allow their employees and still meet the requirements share tips through a tip pooling or tip splitting of * 203(m). as long as the tip pool only includes Giollji'iddo \'. Jasoll Zillk. U.e. 769 F.Supp.2d 880. 893 (D. Md. 20 J I ); see tipped employees. a/so 29 C.F.R. * 531.54. In other words. if the employees dccide to practice tip pooling. the employees must retain all the tips; the employer may not keep any of the tips5 Clio/lji'h/do. 769 r:.Supp. 2d at 893-94 at 230: Morgall\'. SpeakElI.\Y. LLe. 625 (citing Chullg. 246 F.Supp.2d F.Supp.2d 632. 652 (N.D. Ill. 2007): Ayres \'. 127 Reslal/ralll Cli/jl.. 12 F.Supp.2d (S.D.N.Y. 1998); Dm'is \'. B & S. IlIc.. 38 F.Supp.2d llere. Defendants within the parameters have essentially admitted 707. 714 (N.D. Ind. 1998»). that their tip sharing arrangement solidifies Naney's Kitehen ever decided or agreed to participate 203(m). the same conclusion. ever explained In addition. There is no evidence to the employees Mr. Barreto admitted The Code. FLSA result 5 in the record that the employees of in a tip pool. Further. there is no evidence that their wage would be decreased that he did not simply redistribute pooled. but used the tips to buy items lor the restaurant employees. did not lit of * 203(m). See ECr: No. 41-1 at 4-5. I.est there be any doubt. other evidence that Defendants 305. 308-09 under * the tips that were and possibly to pay non-tipped See ECF No. 39-7 at 20 & ECF No. 53-2 at 19. In fact. it is clear that Det'cndants did MWHL contains a tip credit provision similar to the one contained in the FLSA. See Md. LE* 3-419. See GiOl?ji'iddo. 769 F. Supp. at 895 ("'In light of the congruent nature of the and the MWHL ... this Court must conclude that the MWIIL was also violatcd as a of Mr. Zink's participation in thc cmployee tip pooL"). 9 not simply redistribute the tips evenly because the amount the employees always the same regardless of how many tips were actually received. See lOCI' No. 53-2 at 21. Other courts have lound arrangements the FLSA. In SorellSen \'. CHTCorp.. III. Mar. 10.20(4). the employer Under this arrangement. the employer similar to the one in this case to be in violation of Nos. 03 C 1609.03 paid its employees C 7362. 2004 WI. 442638 at * 1 (N.D. $3.09 per hour plus a \lat "per diem" rate. the servers were required to tum over their tips to their employer used the tips to pay a \lat rate to the servers and the non-tipped and other lood preparers). activities. employees and (cooks See id. The employer also used some of the tips to fund charitable See id. There. the court said. albcit in dicta. that Plaintiffs' and the Court was "not persuaded compensation rcceived per day was by Dcfendants' package that amounted bcliefthat remedy lied in the FI.SA the allegcdly 'gcncrous to roughly $70.000 on an annualized basis establishes that they were paid fairly for their work as a mallcr of law .... Id at * 7. See also f)onO\'l/Il \'. '1il\'em' Talent and I'lacements. Inc.. 84-1'-40 I. 1986 WL 32746. at *4 (D. Colo. 1986) (finding that "an agreement whereby the minimum the employer would own the tips received and could usc those tips to satisl~' wage" was not valid under the Act): Wright F.Supp 1216, 1217 (D. Colo. 1986) (Iinding agreement defendant reimbursed contravention I'. U-Lel-Us Skycap Sen'ices. Inc.. 648 where plaintiffs turned in all tips and them just up to the amount that would equal minimum of29 U.S.c. S 203(m». I Iere. Defendants collected Plaintiffs wage was in blatant tips and reimbursed PlaintifT a set amount without regard to how many tips were actually collected by Plainti ITand See lOCI' No. 53-2 at 21. Thus. Defendants' her co-workers. requirements of S 203(m) and the weekly cash payments wage requirements. \0 payment system did not mect the cannot be used to offset the minimum C. Plaintiffs As Defendants Defendants received. remedy did not follow the requirements owe her the difference of * 203(m). Plaintiff argues that between the full minimum wage and the hourly \mge shc See ECF No. 52-I at 1-2. Plaintiff is correct. The Fourth Circuit has found that employcrs count tips in determining the employec's (4th Cir. 1977). In Richard. the employer who violatc damages. Richard permitted employees I'. * 203(m) arc not permitted to Marriott Corp .. 549 F.2d 303. 306 to kcep all their tips but did not pay them any hourly wage unless their tips failed to provide thcm with minimum wage. /< 304. The Fourth Circuit found that this violated thc FLSA. becausc the cmployer failed to pay the employees applicable an hourly wage of at least $2.13. and found damages minimum were 100 percent of the wage. !d. at 306. The Fourth Circuit said: What the Congress has said. in effect. to restaurant employers is that. if you precisely follow the language of [* 20)3(m) and fully your employees of it. you may obtain a 50 percent credit from the receipt of tips toward your obligation to pay the minimum wage. The corollary seems obvious and unavoidable: iI' the employer does not follow the command of the statute. he gets no credit. It is nonsense to argue. as docs I the employerJ. that compliancc with the statute results in one-half credit. but that defiance of the statute results in '100 pcrccnt credit. We think the conclusion is compelled that the measure of damages for cach of [the employer's] employees is payment of the applicable minimum wage in fi.ill. /< 305: see a/so lv/ars/w// employees I'. Genri//. /nc .. 495 F.Supp. 744. 753 (D. Md. 19S0) (Iinding were owed full minimum wage even though they had becn pcrmittcd tips and also paid at least $2.13 an hour bccause the employcr employcr was paying them pal11y in tips as rcquired by Plaintiff an hourly wage below minimum manner that did not comply with * * to kccp their did not provide not icc that thc 203(m»). Ilcrc. Defendants gavc wage and thcn gave her a set amount of tips in a 203(m). Thus. Defendants II cannot count what thcy l1<l\'e referred to as her daily wage as part of her minimum wage and. fllr the first IlJrly hours she worked each week. she is owed the difference hetween $7.25 and her hourly rate of $4.00 or $4.15. For the hours she worked over forty each week. she is owed the difference between 1.5 times the minimum wage and her hourly rate. Scc 29 U.S.c. ~ 207. D. Dates Plaintiff worked In addition to finding that she is owed minimum and overtime wages. I'laintifTasks this Court to identify what specific months she is to be compensated for. Scc ECF No. 52 at 2. The Court linds this request to be premature. The parties have not briefed or argued that I'laintilrs hours should be decided as a matter of law at this time. Additionally. the parties have not briefed or argued the applicable statute oflimitations. Scc 61 Stat. 88.29 U.S.c. ~ 255('1) (provides that FLSA actions must be commenced within two years "except that a cause of action arising out of a willful violation may be commenced within three years alier the cause of action accrued"). Without these pieces of the puzzle. the Court cannot decidc what months I'laintifTshould be compensated for." "The Court also notes that at the hearing. defense counsel suggested thaI if the Court resoh'cd thc ~ 203(m) issue. the defense would concede much of thc remainder of I'laintilr s summary judgment motion. Thus. the Court leaves this to be handled through factual stipulation if trial remams necessary. 12 IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons outlined above, PlaintifTs Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. 29 U.S.c. * 203(m) is applicable to this case. Defendants' payment system violated the FLSA's minimum wage requirements for tipped employees, and Defendants are responsible for paying Plaintiff minimum. and potentially overtime. wages. The amount Plaintiff is owed will depend on the number of hours worked and the applicable statute oflimitations. A separate Order follows. Dated: July' ~~- 7. 2015 GEORGE J. HAZEL United States District Judge 13

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.