Winans v. Starbucks Corp.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76066
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Plaintiffs are former New York residents who worked as Assistant Store Managers (ASMs) for Starbucks in New York, bringing a putative statewide class action under NY Labor Law § 196-d.
- Starbucks maintains a collective tip box at each store; customers tip into this box and weekly tips are apportioned to Baristas and Shift Supervisors based on hours worked.
- The policy provides that only Baristas and Shift Supervisors may handle and receive proceeds from the collective tip boxes; ASMs and Store Managers may not.
- Plaintiffs allege ASMs are similar employees with customer-service duties and thus should be eligible to share in tip pools and should not be excluded from tip box distributions.
- Starbucks argues that § 196-d defines eligibility for tip pools (waiters, busboys, and similar employees) and does not confer a right to participate simply by being eligible; and that there is no policy requiring ASMs to relinquish tips they receive directly.
- The court grants Starbucks summary judgment, ruling that § 196-d does not grant a right to participate in tip pools and that Plaintiffs fail to show Starbucks demanded, accepted, or retained tips from ASMs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ASMs are statutorily eligible to participate in tip pools | ASMs are similar employees eligible to share in tip pools | Policy restricts tip pool to Baristas and Shift Supervisors; ASMs not eligible | Fact questions on eligibility; but Starbuckss entitled to judgment on lack of right to participate |
| Whether § 196-d grants employees a right to participate in tip box distributions | ASMs' inclusion follows from eligibility and customer expectations | § 196-d defines who may participate and does not guarantee entitlement | Plain language does not grant entitlement to participate in tip pools |
| Whether customer expectations or Samiento require distribution to ASMs | Customers expect tips to be distributed to all observed service employees; Samiento supports recovery | Samiento is inapplicable; no mandatory charges or employer retention shown | Samiento inapposite; no evidence Starbucks retained tip box proceeds |
| Whether Starbucks retained any tip box proceeds or coerced ASMs to relinquish tips | ASMs were expected or required to place tips in the box | No written policy or evidence of coercion; tips not retained by Starbucks | No genuine issue that Starbucks demanded, accepted, or retained tips |
Key Cases Cited
- Samiento v. World Yacht Inc., 10 N.Y.3d 70 (N.Y. 2008) (service charges can be gratuities if customers are misled; employer cannot retain them)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment standard; burden on movant to show no genuine issue)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment requires absence of genuine material fact)
- Cifarelli v. Village of Babylon, 93 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 1996) (conclusory allegations cannot defeat summary judgment; need specific facts)
- Caldarola v. Calabrese, 298 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2002) (emphasizes standards for summary judgment in Second Circuit)