Bruske, Ryea v. Capitol Watertown Sprechers, LLC, 3:19-cv-00851

Background

Plaintiffs Ryea and Tamsyn Bruske worked as tipped servers/bartenders at the Watertown Sprecher’s pub; payroll records show sub‑minimum cash wages supplemented by tips.
Plaintiffs allege defendants improperly took a federal tip credit because employees were not informed that the employer would make up any shortfall (and were not told how uniform deductions affected the credit); they also allege defendants failed to obtain signed Wisconsin tip declarations.
Five LLCs operate Sprecher’s locations; common owners/managers (including Kevin Lederer and operations director Sue Getgen) and shared payroll/accounting support led plaintiffs to allege the entities operate as a single employer.
Tipped employees entered tips into a POS each shift and received paystubs showing wages/taxes; the DWD’s former director stated a POS that records tips and produces paystubs satisfies Wisconsin’s tip‑declaration rule.
Procedural posture: plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of an FLSA collective and for Rule 23 class certification on the state claim; defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the state claim. The court conditionally certified a limited collective, approved a modified notice, and granted defendants summary judgment on the Wisconsin tip‑declaration claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Conditional certification of FLSA collective for tipped employees	Bruskes: testimony shows Watertown did not inform tipped employees that employer would make up any shortfall, so a common unlawful policy exists	Defs: limited testimony, plaintiffs worked only certain positions; insufficient common proof	Granted in part: modest showing satisfied for conditional certification (collective limited in scope and timeframe; Fast Lanes excluded)
2) Extending collective to other Sprecher locations (single‑employer)	Bruskes: common ownership, management, payroll, handbook and centralized compliance show integrated enterprise	Defs: separate LLCs and payroll relationships	Held: At conditional stage plaintiffs met the four‑factor test (interrelated operations, centralized labor control, common management, common ownership) to treat entities as a single employer for notice purposes
3) Whether defendants increased tip credit to account for uniform deductions without notice	Bruskes: tip credit amount was effectively larger when uniforms were charged, requiring advance notice of increased credit	Defs: no evidence they ever increased the claimed tip credit	Held: No evidence defendants adjusted tip credit for uniform costs; certification not appropriate for that subset
4) Private right of action under Wisconsin law for failure to obtain signed tip declarations	Bruskes: § 109.03(5) authorizes private action for back wages based on DWD rule violations	Defs: tip‑declaration enforcement is a DWD matter, not privately actionable	Held: Court follows Hussein — plaintiffs may pursue back wages under § 109.03(5) for alleged DWD rule violations
5) Whether the POS system satisfies Wisconsin’s signed tip‑declaration and recordkeeping requirement	Bruskes: entering tips each shift into POS is not equivalent to a signed declaration and lacks authentication	Defs: POS entries + paystubs showing taxes withheld constitute signed/electronic declarations and accurate payroll records	Held: POS system meets DWD § 272.03(2)(b) requirements (electronic signature law supports this); summary judgment for defendants on state claim and Rule 23 class denied

Key Cases Cited

Schaefer v. Walker Bros. Enters., 829 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 2016) (describing the specific notice an employer must give to claim an FLSA tip credit)
Hussein v. Jun‑Yan, LLC, 502 F. Supp. 3d 1366 (E.D. Wis. 2020) (permitting private back‑wage suits under Wis. Stat. § 109.03(5) for alleged DWD rule violations)
Trustees of Pension, Welfare & Vacation Fringe Ben. Funds of IBEW Local 701 v. Favia Elec. Co., 995 F.2d 785 (7th Cir. 1993) (four‑factor single‑employer/integration test)
Bitner v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., 301 F.R.D. 354 (W.D. Wis. 2014) (describing two‑step FLSA collective certification process)
Austin v. CUNA Mut. Ins. Soc., 232 F.R.D. 601 (W.D. Wis. 2006) (explaining the modest factual showing required for conditional certification)
Taveras v. D & J Real Est. Mgmt. II, LLC, 324 F.R.D. 39 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (conditionally certifying a collective where multiple entities were alleged to operate as an integrated enterprise)
Rosario v. Valentine Ave. Disc. Store, Co., 828 F. Supp. 2d 508 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (notice should neutrally warn opt‑in plaintiffs of potential discovery obligations)