Fast v. Applebee's International, Inc.
638 F.3d 872
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Applebee's challenges district court's denial of summary judgment in a FLSA tip credit dispute.
- Employees allege servers/bartenders spend substantial time on non-tip-producing duties, reducing tip credit eligibility.
- DOL Handbook § 30d00(e) and 20% threshold define when tip credit applies; district court relied on these interpretations.
- Regulations § 531.56(e) allow dual jobs but controversy over whether related duties are within tip-occupations.
- Litigation discusses burden of proof under Mt. Clemens framework and whether the employer records shift burdens; court affirms district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of 'engaged in an occupation' for tip credit | Fast et al. rely on occupation context | Applebee's argues focus on occupation, not duties | Regulation ambiguous; Handbook interpretation reasonable and controlling under Auer |
| Whether § 531.56(e) permits tip credit for substantial related duties | Employees perform non-tip duties more than 20% of time | Tip credit allowed for related duties within tipped occupation | 20% threshold reasonable; Handbook interpretation upheld |
| Deference standard to DOL interpretations | DOL interpretations are not entitled to deference | DOL interpretations entitled to Auer deference | DOL interpretation entitled to Auer deference; controlling unless plainly erroneous |
| Effect of dual jobs regulation on tip credit when more than one occupation | Employee in one occupation with tips; other non-tipped duties impact credit | Regulation separates two occupations; tip credit applies to tipped portion | Dual jobs concept applicable; time in non-tipped duties not eligible for tip credit |
| Burden of proof on wage claim where records are imperfect | Employee burden to show undercompensation | Employer records shift burden if records lacking | Mt. Clemens burden-shifting framework applies; employee may prove via inference; employer bears ultimate burden for exemptions |
Key Cases Cited
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1997) (agency interpretations of ambiguous regulations receive deference)
- Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (U.S. 2006) (administrative interpretations lacking notice-and-comment deference; Auer context)
- Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (U.S. 2000) (limits on deference when regulation unambiguous)
- Senger v. City of Aberdeen, 466 F.3d 670 (8th Cir. 2006) (Chevron/Skidmore framework for ambiguous statutes/regulations)
- Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (U.S. 1946) (burden-shifting framework for unpaid wages when records are inadequate)
- Hertz v. Woodbury County, 566 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2009) (mealtime/overtime burden-shifting comparison under Mt. Clemens)
- Myers v. Copper Cellar Corp., 192 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 1999) (tip-related duties and shift duration in tipped occupations)