You are here

Tip Pooling by Restaurant Owners-Remains in Flux

Restaurant owners with tipped employees should take note of several recent court cases which may affect their ability to cause restaurant employees to participate in “tip pooling,” particularly in instances where back-of-house employees are included in such tip pooling arrangements.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) allows employers to fulfill part of their federal minimum hourly wage obligation to a tipped employee with tips received by such employees. Therefore, an employer may elect, rather than paying a tipped employee a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, to pay such tipped employee a minimum wage of $2.13 per hour, with the balance of such employee’s minimum hourly wage covered by the tips received by such employee. This practice is known as taking a “tip credit.” The FLSA requires employers who take a tip credit (i) to give notice of such election to its employees, and (ii) to allow its tipped employees to retain all tips they receive, unless such employees participate in a valid tip pool. Under the FLSA, a tip pool is considered valid if it is comprised exclusively of employees who are “customarily and regularly” tipped, such as waiters, waitresses, bellhops, counter personnel (who serve customers), bussers and service bartenders. An employer who avails itself of the tip credit, therefore, cannot include back-of-house employees who are not “customarily and regularly” tipped (such as dishwashers, cooks, chefs and janitors) in a tip pool.

In the last few years, however, a question has arisen with respect to whether the FLSA imposes restrictions on tip-pooling when an employer does not take a tip credit. Specifically, whether an employer who pays its tipped employees at least $7.25 per hour can impose a tip pooling scheme that includes back-of house employees who are not customarily and regularly tipped. In 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that under the FLSA it was acceptable for an employer that did not take the tip credit (i.e., an employer that paid its tipped employees the full federal minimum hourly wage) to require tipped employees to pool their tips with non-tipped employees because the relevant section of the FLSA is silent as to employers who do not take a tip credit (only expressly imposing the “customarily and regularly” tipped requirement on employers who did take the tip credit).

In response to the 2010 Ninth Circuit ruling, the Department of Labor instituted regulations extending the “customarily and regularly” tipped requirement for tip pooling to instances where an employer does not take the tip credit, thus making it so that no employers, including those that do not take the tip credit, can include back-of-house employees in their tip pooling arrangements. Soon thereafter, several district courts held such new regulations to be invalid, finding that the relevant language of the FLSA imposed a condition on taking a tip credit (that if the tip credit was taken, tip pooling could only include customarily and regularly tipped employees) rather than a freestanding requirement pertaining to all tipped employees. Then, in a split decision that surprised many observers, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court decisions, holding that the fact that the FLSA was silent on tip pooling restrictions when an employer does not take the tip credit did not foreclose the Department of Labor from promulgating reasonable regulations with respect thereto.

writ of Certiorari with respect to the Ninth Circuit decision has been filed with the Supreme Court. Until such time as the Supreme Court decides whether to hear the case, restaurant owners may want to exercise caution before extending tip pooling arrangements to include back-of-house employees who are not customarily and regularly tipped.

Subscribe to The Journal

* indicates required
Areas of Interest

Pragma International will use the information you provide on this form to be in touch with you and to provide updates and marketing. Please let us know all the ways you would like to hear from us:

You can change your mind at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in the footer of any email you receive from us, or by contacting us at We will treat your information with respect. For more information about our privacy practices please visit our website. By clicking below, you agree that we may process your information in accordance with these terms.

We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices here.

Article Rating: 
Average: 4.3 (7 votes)
Total reads: 1,588
Roberto García's picture

Roberto Garcia is an Associate in the firm’s Real Estate Group. Roberto advises clients on a variety of commercial real estate matters, including the acquisition, disposition, financing, development and leasing of commercial real estate assets. Roberto has worked on transactions involving office, hotel, retail, multi-family and mixed-use properties, and construction, mortgage and mezzanine financing.

Roberto also maintains an active pro bono practice, successfully representing several undocumented immigrant children seeking Special Immigrant Juvenile Status relief from deportation.


Acquisitions and dispositions of office buildings, shopping centers, warehouses and raw land, joint ventures, real property secured and mezzanine loans, and like-kind exchanges are the focus of Tim Watkins' practice. Tim also handles all aspects of real estate agreements including joint venture agreements, leases, development agreements, property management agreements and listing agreements.