The DOL Serves Up a Major Overhaul of its Tip-Sharing Regulations

by BakerHostetler

Citing a “significant amount of private litigation,” recent changes in state wage laws, and “independent and serious concerns” of public policy, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is proposing to rescind an Obama-era rule that prohibits employers from implementing tip-sharing pools comprised of both tipped and non-tipped employees.

Last week, the DOL published a Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would scale back the tip-pool regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and allow employers to include more employees in its tip-sharing pools. Under the new proposed regulations, if an employer pays its employees an amount equal or greater to the minimum wage without utilizing the tip credit provision found in Section 3(m), then the employer would no longer be bound to Section 3(m)’s prohibitions on tip-sharing amongst traditionally non-tipped employees. Instead, the new rule would allow employers to expand their tip sharing pools to include employees who are not customarily tipped, such as dishwashers and restaurant cooks, but who “contribute to the customers’ experience.”

Congress Amended Section 3(m) of the FLSA to Allow Employers to “Credit” to Their Minimum Wage Obligations Tips Paid to Employees.

The FLSA generally requires covered employers to pay its employees a federal minimum wage of at least $7.25/hour. In 1966, Congress amended Section 3(m) of the statute, defining the term “wage” to include a provision that permitted an employer to utilize tips received by employees to subsidize up to 50 percent of its minimum wage obligations. In other words, an employer could use the amount of tips an employee receives as a partial credit to satisfy the difference between the statutorily required minimum wage and the direct wages paid to the employee.

Congress again amended Section 3(m) in 1974 to further limit when an employer could credit an employee’s tips to its minimum wages obligations. Specifically, the 1974 amendment provided that employee tips could be credited to the employees' wages only if the tipped employees were allowed to retain all of their tips. Congress included a specific carve-out, however, that allowed employers to still use the tip credit in instances where the employer required employees to deposit their tips into a tip pool shared only among those employees who “customarily and regularly” received tips.

Despite this significant amendment to the tip credit provision, it took the DOL nearly 40 years to revise its regulations to reflect and address the 1974 amendments to the FLSA’s tip-credit provision.

Under the DOL’s 2011 Rules on Tipping, All Employers, Regardless of Whether They Utilize Section 3(m)’s Tip Credit, Are Prohibited From Including Nontipped Employees in Tip-Sharing Pools.

In 2011 the DOL issued a Final Rule addressing tip pooling, the tip credit, and other regulations pertaining to other permissible uses of employee tips. In pertinent part, the 2011 Final Rule stated: “The employer is prohibited from using an employee’s tips, whether or not it has taken a tip credit, for any reason other than that which is statutorily permitted in section 3(m): As a credit against its minimum wage obligations to the employee, or in furtherance of a valid tip pool.”

These regulations barred all employers from implementing tip-sharing pools that included employees who did not customarily and regularly receive tips, regardless of whether or not the employer was utilizing Section 3(m)’s tip credit for purposes of satisfying its minimum wage obligations. In other words, an employer was still bound by Section 3(m) limitations on tip-sharing pools even if that employer paid its employees above minimum wage without applying a tip credit.

Since the passing of the regulations, employers have not been prohibited from maintaining tip-sharing pools among traditionally tipped employees such as servers and bartenders. However, the regulations have prohibited other employees like cooks and dishwashers from being included in and receiving pay from these tip pools.

Increased Litigation Over the Application and Validity of the Tip Sharing Regulations Raised “Serious Concerns” at the DOL About the Blanket Application of the 2011 Final Rule to All Employers.

The 2011 regulations faced almost immediate scrutiny from employers throughout the hospitality industry. These employers challenged the DOL’s authority to promulgate the 2011 Final Rule, asserting that the rule was contrary to the FLSA’s clear statutory language in Section 3(m) that placed restrictions on an employer’s use of tips only when the employer used the tip credit to meet its minimum wage obligations. Accordingly, there was an increase in litigation addressing the validity and implementation of the 2011 Final Rule, resulting in a split between the Ninth Circuit and the Tenth and Fourth Circuits.

The Ninth Circuit, in ORLA v. Perez, 816 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2016), granted the DOL’s appeal of the district court’s decision that the regulations were contrary to the clear intent of Congress, and upheld the validity of the tip regulations. The Ninth Circuit consolidated the case with Cesarz v. Wynn Las Vegas, 2014 WL 117579 (D. Nev. 2014), a private FLSA action in which the plaintiffs-employees relied on the 2011 regulations to assert that the employer violated the FLSA when it required its casino dealers to share their tips with other employees who did not receive tips. Having found that the FLSA was silent with respect to employers that do not take a tip credit, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the tip regulations were a reasonable application of the agency’s authority to fill gaps left in the text of the FLSA. Notably, a dissent opinion joined by 10 judges asserted that the agency did exceed its authority because the DOL “has not been delegated authority to ban tip pooling by employers who forgo the tip credit….” Both parties in the ORLA matter filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court that is still pending.

While ORLA was pending, the Fourth Circuit heard Trejo v. Ryman Hospitality Properties, Inc., 795 F.3d 442 (4th Cir. 2015), a private FLSA action brought by restaurant and hotel servers who were required to share their tips with bartenders, server assistants, busboys, and food runners. The DOL submitted a brief as amicus curiae arguing that the 2011 regulations were valid and entitled to deference. Disagreeing, the Fourth Circuit concluded that Section 3(m) “simply does not contemplate a claim for wages other than minimum wage or overtime wages.” Trejo, 795 F.3d at 448.

Likewise, the Tenth Circuit ruled in Marlow v. The New Food Guy, 861 F.3d 1157 (10th Cir. 2017) that the 2011 tip regulations were invalid to the extent they barred and employer from sharing tips with employees who did not customarily or regularly receive tips when the employer paid wages that satisfied the minimum wage laws without claiming a Section 3(m) tip credit.

According to the DOL, the Marlow decision and the dissent in ORLA raised “serious concerns” over whether or not it had correctly construed the statute when promulgating its 2011 regulations on tip sharing.

The DOL also noted that the high volume of litigation involving the 2011 tip regulations had been further exacerbated by the fact that after 2011 a number of states, including as Arizona Colorado, Minnesota, and New York, amended their wage laws to increase the amount of wages an employer must pay tipped employees without utilizing a tip credit. As a result, the number of employers utilizing Section 3(m)’s tip credit to satisfy its minimum wage obligations has decreased significantly over the past five years.

The DOL’s New Rule Is Limited Only to Those Employers That Pay Employees the Full Minimum Wage Without a Tip Credit.

Although the DOL ceased enforcing the 2011 tip sharing regulations in July of this year, it is now seeking to formally rescind certain parts of its prohibition against the sharing of tips with employees who do not customarily receive tips. The DOL made clear, however, that the proposed rule would only apply to employers that pay employees wages of at least the federal minimum wage and do not take a tip credit. The new rule would not apply to employers that pay less than the federal minimum wage and still take advantage of Rule 3(m)’s tip credit provision. “The purpose of section 3(m)’s tip credit provision is to allow an employer to subsidize a portion of its Federal minimum wage obligation by crediting the tips customers give to employees. If an employer takes a credit against its wage obligations, section 3(m) applies, along with its attendant protections that restrict the employer’s use of tips received by its employees.”

The DOL Expects the New Rule Will Have Positive Effects on Employers and Employees Alike.

Touting “greater flexibility” in establishing pay practices for tipped and non-tipped workers, the DOL surmises that this new proposed rule could result in a number of benefits in the workplace such as:

  • A reduction in wage disparities between employees who traditionally have received tips and those employees who are in lower-wage job classifications and do not typically receive tips;
  • An increased incentive among all employees to improve service quality and customer’s experience regardless of their position or role;
  • Increased interaction and cooperation between coworkers;
  • An increase in employee productivity;
  • A decrease in employee turnover;
  • Employers in other industries (e.g. casinos) could adopt similar tip pooling arrangements; and
  • Clarity and consistent application of Rule 3(m)’s tip-sharing requirements across the country.

Nevertheless, the DOL acknowledged that the extent of these potential benefits and the effect of the proposed rule on traditionally nontipped employees is entirely dependent on a number of unmeasurable market forces.

Public Comments Sought on Employer Tip-Sharing Procedures and Potential Responses to the Implementation of the Rule

Because it is unable to quantify the effect the regulation may have on employer, employee and even consumer behaviors, the DOL is seeking public feedback on the proposed regulation and the potential effect its implementation would have on employer tipping procedures and consumer tipping practices. Specifically, the DOL has requested public comments and information on the following issues:

  • For those employers that pay their tipped employees wages equal or greater to the minimum wage and do not utilize the tip credit, what portion of those employers reallocate tips among other employees, and what portion of the total tips do they retain and reallocate?
  • How prevalent are employer-required, or mandatory, tip pools? What factors determine whether an employer institutes a mandatory tip pool? What portion of the tips received by employees do employers anticipate being will be contributed to the tip pool? What kinds of factors might influence an employer's decision to exclude some tips from inclusion in a mandatory tip pool?
  • Do tipped employees who are required to participate in a mandatory tip pool receive a fixed dollar amount or a fixed percentage of the pool? Is it common for some employees to receive a larger share of the tip pool than others or are tips typically distributed on an even basis among all participants in the tip pool?
  • If this proposed rule were adopted, what types or categories of employees would employers choose to include in mandatory tip pools?
  • What effect would the proposed rule have on customers’ tipping practices?
  • If the rule were adopted, would employers expand tip pools and reallocate tips to nontipped employees and, if so, what effect would this have on the disparity between the take-home earnings of tipped and nontipped employees in the service industry?
  • If this rule were adopted as proposed, what nonregulatory limitations would employers and employees face when deciding whether and how to design a tip-pooling arrangement?
  • What market norms or other behavioral or cultural reasons cause certain types of tip pooling to be more prevalent than others?
  • To what extent is the endowment effect (that is, customarily and regularly tipped employees potentially valuing tips more than wages of the same average amount) relevant for explaining potential tip behavior in a relatively less-regulated market?
  • The DOL originally requested that all comments be received on or before January 4, 2018. However, the DOL has now indicated on its website that it will be extending this comment period by an extra 30 days. BakerHostetler’s Employment Group is available to assist in the preparation and drafting of any comments for submission to the DOL on this matter.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© BakerHostetler | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


BakerHostetler on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.