Starbucks Baristas Win Fight For Tips in Boston; NYC Case Pending

A class of 2,500 baristas was awarded summary judgment in Boston Federal Court, in their claim that Starbucks doled out tips meant for them to supervisors, in violation of the state's Tips Law.  But a similar case in New York is still undecided.

The Massachusetts Tips Law "is clear on its face," said Shannon Liss-Riordan, who represented the baristas. "We are looking forward to recovering money the Starbucks baristas should have received because their tip pool was diluted."

"The legislature has made clear that the supervisors' pay should come entirely out of company's pocket and not the tip pool," she said.

Liss-Riordan is arguing a similar case in New York, where a federal judge ruled in favor of Starbucks.

In an appeal of that case, Liss-Riordan said the New York labor law's plain language prohibits wait staff employees from being required to share tips with supervisors.

"The New York law uses slightly different language that signifies the same important point that supervisors are not to share in tip pools," Liss-Riordan said. "Their money must come entirely from employers."
In the Boston case, Hernan Matamoros, Sharon Sam Chan and Kate Petersen filed the class action case challenging Starbucks' policy of distributing tips left by customers to shift supervisors instead of to the baristas and counter employees for whom they presumably were intended.

Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin recommended allowing the plaintiffs' request for summary judgment, obviating the need for a trial, and also recommended allowing the case to be certified as a class action on behalf of all Starbucks employees in Massachusetts who were similarly affected.

U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton overruled objections from Starbucks and upheld Magistrate Sorokin's findings.