A trial Court decision concerning the sharing of tips by shift supervisors has been overturned.
Chau V Starbucks Inc. case D053491 (Super. Ct. GIC836925) was a Class Action claim that shift supervisors at Starbucks were Agents as defined by the California Labor Code (Section 351) not eligible to share in collections at the "tip jar".
The California Court of Appeals Fourth, Division One ruled that the shift supervisors had no real managerial authority and did barista type work most of the time. Therefore, they could share based upon hours worked the same as every other barista. Barista's at Starbucks can become shift supervisors after 6 months on the job if an opening exists.
Please also see California Business and Professions Code Section 17200.
It turns out that the litigation to date has taken almost 7 years and put considerable capital at risk as the trial court awarded 86 million to the Plaintiff class.
What should happen now? Chau has promised to take the case to the California Supreme Court.
No doubt a considerably large amount of legal fees has been expended by both sides of this case.
Starbucks had to also consider any impact in other states over the status of this litigation.
Not to mention the adverse publicity that seemed to ensue about their alleged beating up of the little guy.
If Starbucks is right that about 95% of the time shift supervisors render customer service, it appears the Appeals Court has it right: case dismissed.
What maybe should have been sued upon in the first place was the actual formula used to calculate the share of the tips rightfully earned by the shift supervisors (certainly less than a full hour per hour amount) and whether any substantial adverse impact actually befell to the baristas as a whole.
Should they start over? Or should a nominal settlement and re-formulation be proposed to get this mess over with? Especially in view of today's economy, I think I might vote for that course of action by both sides. We shall see.
Comments