Roberts v. Apple Sauce, Inc.
945 F. Supp. 2d 995, 2013 WL 2083467, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68255 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To state a plausible "dual jobs" claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a tipped employee must plead specific facts detailing the amount of time spent performing non-tipped duties, allowing a court to reasonably infer that these duties comprised a substantial portion (e.g., more than 20%) of their working hours.
Facts:
- From 2002 until January 2013, Jessica Roberts was employed as a server at an Applebee's restaurant in South Bend, Indiana.
- The restaurant was owned by CJ Apple I, Inc., and managed by Apple Sauce, Inc., with W. Curtis Smith serving as president and sole living shareholder of both companies.
- Roberts and other tipped employees, including servers, bartenders, and hosts, were paid a sub-minimum hourly wage under the FLSA's tip credit provision.
- Roberts and other tipped employees were required to perform duties described as being outside their tipped occupations, such as dishwashing, food preparation, kitchen and bathroom cleaning, and trash removal.
- The complaint did not specify the amount of time or frequency with which Roberts and other employees performed these non-tipped duties in relation to their total work hours.
Procedural Posture:
- Jessica Roberts filed a collective action lawsuit against Apple Sauce, Inc., C.J. Apple I, Inc., and W. Curtis Smith in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.
- Roberts filed a motion seeking conditional certification of a collective action to authorize notice to other similarly situated employees.
- The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- In response, Roberts filed a First Amended Complaint, which maintained the minimum wage claims at issue.
- The District Court is now ruling on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a complaint for an FLSA minimum wage violation state a plausible claim for relief when it alleges a tipped employee performed non-tipped duties without providing specific facts about the amount of time spent on those duties?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Theresa L. Springmann
No. A complaint fails to state a plausible "dual jobs" claim under the FLSA if it merely lists non-tipped duties performed by a tipped employee without providing factual allegations about the amount of time spent on them. Under the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard, a plaintiff must allege sufficient factual matter to raise the right to relief above a speculative level. The court rejected the plaintiff's legal theory that performing any non-tipped duty automatically invalidates the tip credit. Instead, the court looked to the Department of Labor's regulations (29 C.F.R. § 531.56(e)) and its Field Operations Handbook, which suggest a 20% threshold for determining when time spent on related, non-tipped duties becomes substantial enough to require payment of the full minimum wage. Because the complaint only listed duties like 'dishwashing' and 'cleaning' without quantifying the time spent, it was merely 'consistent with' liability but did not plausibly allege that the duties were substantial rather than incidental. Therefore, the complaint failed to 'connect the dots' and state a plausible claim for a dual jobs violation.
Analysis:
This case exemplifies the application of the heightened Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard to FLSA "dual jobs" claims involving tipped employees. The court's decision establishes that plaintiffs cannot survive a motion to dismiss by simply listing non-tipped tasks they performed. Instead, they must include specific factual allegations, particularly regarding the amount of time spent on those tasks, to make their claim plausible. This raises the pleading bar, requiring tipped employees and their counsel to conduct more thorough pre-filing investigation to quantify non-tipped work, thereby making it more challenging to initiate such lawsuits.
