Beginning Next Week: InsideCounsel will become part of Corporate Counsel. Bringing these two industry-leading websites together will now give you comprehensive coverage of the full spectrum of issues affecting today's General Counsel at companies of all sizes. You will continue to receive expert analysis on key issues including corporate litigation, labor developments, tech initiatives and intellectual property, as well as Women, Influence & Power in Law (WIPL) professional development content. Plus we'll be serving all ALM legal publications from one interconnected platform, powered by, giving you easy access to additional relevant content from other InsideCounsel sister publications.

To prevent a disruption in service, you will be automatically redirected to the new site next week. Thank you for being a valued InsideCounsel reader!


Starbucks appeals $14.1 million tip-pooling class action suit

Coffee chain says it isn’t violating Massachusetts tip laws

Four years ago, experts noted an uptick in tip-pooling lawsuits—suits in which plaintiffs claim their employers’ policies of pooling tips among certain employees violate state employment laws. The increase was due in part to a string of suits in which Starbucks Corp. baristas filed proposed class actions against the coffee chain, arguing that the company’s tip-sharing policy—in which tips are pooled among baristas and shift supervisors—aren’t legal because supervisors have managerial responsibility and therefore shouldn’t be entitled to the tips.

One of the suits, Matamoros v. Starbucks Corp., claimed Starbucks’ tip policy violated the Massachusetts Tip Statute, which defines a tip as a “sum of money … given as an acknowledgment of any service performed by a wait staff employee.” The statute defines a wait staff employee as someone who directly serves food and beverages or clears tables in a qualifying establishment and has no managerial responsibility.

Starbucks argued that its shift supervisors were actually wait staff with limited supervisory duties that didn’t really constitute as managerial responsibility. But last year, a district court agreed with plaintiffs, granted them partial summary judgment and recommended class certification. In January, the district court judge made his final ruling and ordered Starbucks to pay $14.1 million.

Now, Starbucks is appealing the judgment. According to news reports, oral arguments began Sept. 11. The coffee chain maintains that its shift supervisors are wait staff entitled to tips and that the district court erred in its decision.

For more InsideCounsel stories about foodservice employment disputes, read:

Darden Restaurants accused of underpaying servers

Wage and hour suits on the rise, study says

Batali, Bastianich to pay $5.25 million for allegedly cheating workers

Tipping the balance

Ashley Post

Bio and more articles

Join the Conversation

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.