Chip's Restaurant Case Before High Court Could Affect Pay for Connecticut Servers
The Connecticut Supreme Court will hear a pay disparity case later this month that pits hundreds of current and former Chip's Family Restaurants servers against the eatery chain.
January 03, 2020 at 05:20 PM
4 minute read
Oral arguments in a wage disparity lawsuit are scheduled for Jan. 22 before the Connecticut Supreme Court in class action litigation that could determine whether restaurants must pay the state's full $11-an-hour minimum wage when servers perform other duties.
"This is the first case where class certification was granted in such a similar lawsuit," said plaintiffs attorney Richard Hayber, who representing Jacqueline Rodriguez in Rodriguez v. Chip's Family Restaurants.
The high court proceedings follows a March ruling from Superior Court Judge Carl Schuman, who granted class certification to potentially hundreds of Chip's employees at the restaurant's six franchises across Connecticut.
"If the Supreme Court affirms the ruling, it will essentially set precedent going forward, and would give other trial courts guidance that they should follow Judge Schuman's ruling and not the ones from 2006," said Hayber of Hayber, McKenna & Dinsmore. "In those cases, four earlier rulings from that year from four different judges denied class certification in similar cases."
The turnaround came when Schuman wrote a 10-page ruling finding the plaintiffs had made their case that servers performed duties that went beyond the customer-service tasks for which they earned tips. In these cases, the employees argue they should make minimum wage, because they get no tips to subsidize their income during these times.
Restaurant chains, such as Chip's, are permitted to pay a $6.38 minimum wage for service duties because some restaurant workers can make up the difference in tips. But those workers must be paid the state's full minimum wage if they do other things such as stock food, sweep and clean dishes.
Those tip rules were being ignored, plaintiffs argued.
"What is critical is that servers performed some side work on every shift and locations, other than the tables and booths," the judge wrote. "The defendants do not present or identify any evidence negating that general proposition."
The restaurant chain stopped assigning side work on March 1, 2018, soon after Rodriguez filed suit.
Rodriguez worked for the restaurant at its Wethersfield branch for about two years until October 2017.
The class, which seeks monetary damages, would cover servers who worked at the chain from Oct. 25, 2015, through March 1, 2018.
The defendants opposed class certification, and claimed the amount and type of side work performed varied among individual servers and from restaurant to restaurant.
But Hayber argued it was the responsibility of the chain, and not the employee, to keep records of nonservice and service hours worked, and pay accordingly. He said Chip's conceded it did not do that, claiming nonservice work is incidental to service work, and therefore the restaurant chain shouldn't have to keep track.
"They acknowledge that they did not keep records," Hayber said. "If they don't, they must pay the full minimum wage for the full shift."
Now, one of his main arguments before the justices that class actions are appropriate to hold restaurants liable for what plaintiffs call wage theft.
Representing Chip's are Robinson & Cole attorneys Stephen Aronson and Jeffrey White. Neither responded to a request for comment Friday. George Chatzopoulos, the owners of the Chip's franchises in Connecticut, also did not respond to a request for comment.
Hayber said he's optimistic the state Supreme Court will rule for the plaintiffs because "the laws and the evidence and the facts are on my side." He plans to have lead plaintiff Rodriguez at oral arguments later this month.
"My intention is to have her there," he said of Rodriguez, who now works as a case manager for a treatment facility. "She is representative for the class. I have heard judges indicate that they are always happy when clients attend. It shows the lawyers are keeping them involved in the case."
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAmid Growing Litigation Volume, Don't Expect UnitedHealthcare to Change Its Stripes After CEO's Killing
6 minute readAttorney Overcomes Low Medical Bills, Captures $1 Million Policy Limit
2 minute read'Stake Out My Space': Attorneys, Law Professors Flock from X to Bluesky
Conn. Appeals Court Slices $150 Million in Statutory Damages From Judgment Owed by Alex Jones
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1What Does Ohio Supreme Court's Opioid Decision Mean for Public Nuisance Claims?
- 2Bucking Industry Trend, Sidley Austin Elects Biggest Class of Partners in Firm History
- 3US Judge Throws Out Sale of Infowars to The Onion. But That's Not the End of the Road for Sandy Hook Families
- 4‘Really Deflating’: Judges React to Biden Threat to Veto New Judgeships Bill
- 53 Incidents Lead to Charges Against the Alexander Brothers; Cousin Remains at Large
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250