Starbucks operated in Massachusetts a tip sharing program that distributed weekly accumulated tips to baristas and shift supervisors in proportion to their hours worked that week. The Massachusetts Tips Act allows tip sharing only among employees with, among other things, "no managerial responsibility." But does "no" really mean "no"? Yes it does answered the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Matamoros v. Starbucks Corporation, No 12-1189 (November 9, 2012), in affirming a $14 million judgment in a class action brought by baristas.
The Massachusetts Tips Act permits tip pooling and sharing among wait staff employees that serve food or beverages and have "no managerial responsibility." Starbucks argued that its shift supervisors could participate in tip sharing because 90% of the time they performed the same work tasks as baristas and that there was a difference between a supervisor and a manager. The First Circuit had none of this argument:
The Tips Act states unequivocally that only employees who possess "no managerial responsibility" may qualify as "wait staff." "No" means "no," and we interpret that easily understood word in its ordinary sense: "not any."
Baristas like bartenders, waiters and waitresses are subject to rules regarding both the tip credit, which allows them to be paid far less than the minimum wage with the assumption that tips make up the difference, and tip sharing and pooling. Unlawful application of the tip credit by Applebee's Restaurants was discussed in an earlier post: Tip Credit Not Applicable to Bartenders and Servers Where More Than 20% of Work Is Performing Related But Nontipped Duties.
