Turner v. Millennium Park Joint Venture, LLC
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22295
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- Turner and Warren, servers at Park Grill (Millennium) sued Millennium for improper tip pooling under FLSA and Illinois Wage Law/ Wage Payment Act; Park Grill paid 60% of minimum wage with 40% from tip credit; tips pooled with silverware rollers who earned $3 per day from the pool; servers voted in 2006 to hire silverware rollers and management implemented the arrangement; plaintiffs contended tip pool violated FLSA limits and state laws; Millennium moved for summary judgment under Rule 56 and alternatively under Rule 56(d); court granted Millennium’s motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tip pool composition under FLSA | Turner/Warren claim rollers should not share tips. | Rollers were part of a regular tip-sharing arrangement. | Rollers properly included in the tip pool. |
| State-law claims adequacy | Illinois statutes prohibit improper tip pooling. | FLSA interpretation should govern, negating state-law claims. | State-law claims dismissed on alternative ground. |
| Meaning of tips "customarily and regularly" | Tip receipt requires direct customer tips for eligibility. | Tip-sharing allowed where employees regularly receive tips via pool; implied agreement suffices. | Literal, history, and regs support inclusion of pool participants. |
| Implied agreement binding on new hires | No explicit consent from Turner/Warren; inconsistent with implied binding. | Employment relationship creates implied agreement to tip pool similar to bargaining unit rules. | Agreement implied from overall relationship and practice; binds plaintiffs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (material facts must be genuinely in dispute)
- Wheeler v. Lawson, 539 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2008) (nonmovant must present specific facts showing a genuine issue)
- Geary v. Telular Corp., 341 Ill.App.3d 694 (Ill.App. 1st Dist. 2003) (analogy to bargaining-unit binding on new hires)
- Swanson v. Village of Lake in the Hills, 962 F.2d 602 (7th Cir. 1992) (requirement for specific evidence in response to Rule 56.1)