Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
11 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino (Ct. App.)
What wage and hour issue was at stake here |
tip pooling
|
|
|
Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino (Ct. App.)
What are the facts? |
Casino dealers challenged the tip pooling policy of the casino, stating that because the tips came to them directly instead of being left on the table for every service worker to share, that the tips were theirs
|
|
|
Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino (Ct. App.)
How did the trial court rule? |
The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings stating that Labor Code 351 and 450 do not create a private right of action. They then dismissed the case on summary judgment
|
|
|
Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino (Ct. App.)
How did the Appeals Court rule? |
The court ruled that tip pooling was ok and that while Labor Code 351 and 450 did not create a private right of action, it did underly a UCL claim. The court reversed summary judgment on the sole issue that some of the people receiving tips were "agents" and should not under Labor Code 351 - the matter was a triable fact.
|
|
|
Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino (Ct. App.)
What did the California Supreme Court certify? |
The Court certified the question of whether Labor Code 351, preventing employers from leeching tips, created a private right of action.
|
|
|
Grodensky v. Artichoke Joe's (Ct. App.)
What kind of wage and hour case is this? |
tip pooling
|
|
|
Grodensky v. Artichoke Joe's (Ct. App.)
What were the claims in this case? |
Casino dealers alleged violations of the Labor Code, UCL and conversion for maintenance of a mandatory tipping pool
|
|
|
Grodensky v. Artichoke Joe's (Ct. App.)
What did the trial court find |
The trial court found that the tipping pool was legal. There was no violation of the minimum wage laws, Labor Code 1194. Floor managers were not agents under Labor Code 350 because they did not hire or fire or really supervise. On the other hand, shift managers supervised and were agents, creating a Labor Code 351 violation or private right of action and supporting a UCL claim.
|
|
|
Grodensky v. Artichoke Joe's (Ct. App.)
What were the remedies that the trial court gave? |
Restitution of the tips given to shift managers, an injunction and attorneys' fees
|
|
|
Grodensky v. Artichoke Joe's (Ct. App.)
What did the Appeals Court decide in Grodensky's favor |
1) The protective order did not constitute a miscarriage of justice 2) Labor Code 351 creates a private right of action
|
|
|
Grodensky v. Artichoke Joe's (Ct. App.)
What did the Appeals Court find against Grodensky |
The protective order was unlawful. Labor Code 351 did not provide a private right of action. Restitution was not the right remedy. The wrong test was used to evaluate attorneys fees under CCP 1021.5
|
