Dorsey v. TGT Consulting, LLC (2012)

Dorsey v. TGT Consulting, LLC, 888 F.Supp.2d 670, 682 (D.Md. 2012).

These latter two requirements are “strictly construed” and “must be satisfied even if the employee received tips at least equivalent to the minimum wage.” Dorsey, 888 F. Supp. 2d at 681 (citation omitted).

See generally Dorsey, 888 F. Supp. 2d at 691 (“Less drastic alternatives to sealing—such as targeted redaction—would be overly burdensome given the minimal public interest at stake.”).

The record reflects that, after that deposition (on July 22, 2020), Plaintiffs’ counsel e-mailed Defendants’ counsel to inquire about three documents, asking, inter alia, “[w]hy weren’t these [three] documents produced in discovery?” (Docket Entry 167-5 at 2; see also id. (“Why did you choose to omit the 3rd page of the Milano letter from the deposition, which shows that Mike Milano signed the document?”).) The next day, Defendants’ counsel responded: The first document was …

Dorsey v. TGT Consulting, LLC, 888 F.Supp.2d 670, 685 (D.

The Court reiterated that observation in its Order denying the Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration, see Doc. 143 at 5 (”[E]ven assuming the Kitchen Tip Pool was voluntary, Defendants admit that they have retained employees’ tips by virtue of the kitchen managers withholding tips from kitchen employees for disciplinary reasons.”), and the cases the Court cited in that order stand for the same basic proposition: that an employer’s interference with an employee's right to re…

In the second stage, following the close of discovery, the “court engages in a more stringent inquiry to determine whether the plaintiff class is [in fact] ‘similarly situated’ in accordance with the requirements of [Section] 216, and renders a final decision regarding the propriety of proceeding as a collective action.” Dorsey v. TGT Consulting, LLC, 888 F.Supp.2d 670, 686 (D.Md.2012) (quoting Syrja, 756 F.Supp.2d at 686 ) (first alteration in original).

Mar. 11, 2024) (citing Dorsey v. TGT Consulting, LLC, 888 F. Supp. 2d 670, 690 (D.

Nov. 7, 2023) (finding proposed redaction of “commercially sensitive information” justified under “the more rigorous First Amendment standard,” when “[r]elease . . . would disadvantage [the sealing proponent] relative to its competitors”) (citation omitted); Dorsey v. TGT Consulting, LLC, 888 F. Supp. 2d 670, 690 (D.

To be eligible to apply the tip credit under the FLSA, an employer must have: (1) paid employees at least $2.13 per hour as base pay; (2) informed the relevant employees that the tip credit was being claimed; and (3) allowed the employees to retain all tips that they received, except that tips may be pooled among employees who “customarily and regularly receive tips.” 29 U.S.C. § 203 (m)(2); Dorsey v. TGT Consulting, LLC, 888 F. Supp. 2d 670, 680-81 (D.

Section 203(m) provides that an employer may not take a tip credit unless (1) “such employee has been informed by the employer of the provisions of this subsection” and (2) “all tips received by such employee have been retained by the employee, except that the subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the pooling of tips among employees who customarily receive such tips.” Dorsey v. TGT Consulting, LLC, 888 F. Supp. 2d 670, 680-81 (D.

In the second stage, the “court engages in a more stringent inquiry to determine whether the plaintiff class is [in fact] ‘similarly situated’ in accordance with the requirements of [Section] 216, and renders a final decision regarding the propriety of proceeding as a collective action.” Butler, 47 F. Supp. 3d at 306 (quoting Dorsey v. TGT Consulting, LLC, 888 F. Supp. 2d 670, 686 (D.

Next, “following the close of discovery, the ‘court engagesinamore _ stringent inquiry to determine whether the plaintiff class is in fact similarly situated in accordance with the requirements of [FLSA] Section 216.” Butler, 47 F. Supp. 3d at 306 (quoting Dorsey v. IGT Consulting, LLC, 888 F. Supp. 2d 670, 686 (D.

See Perez v. Lorraine Enters., Inc., 769 F.3d 23, 31 (1st Cir. 2014); Dorsey v. TGT Consulting, LLC, 888 F. Supp. 2d 670, 682 (D.

August 1, 2019) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) and Wilson v. Lakner, 228 F.R.D. 524, 528 (D.Md. 2005)). “[D]epending on the nature and extent of the obfuscation, the testimony given by [a] nonresponsive deponent (e.g., “I don’t know”) may be deemed binding on the corporation so as to prohibit it from offering contrary evidence at trial.” Dorsey v. TGI Consulting, LLC., 888 F.Supp.2d 670, 685 (D.Md. 2012) (emphasis added) (internal quotations marks omitted).

Such an agreement is invalid.”);> Dorsey v. TGT Consulting, LLC, 888 F. Supp. 2d 670, n. 7 (D.

“As a corollary, depending on the nature and extent of the obfuscation, the testimony given by [a] nonresponsive deponent (e.g., ‘I don’t know’) may be deemed binding on the corporation so as to prohibit it from offering contrary evidence at trial.” Dorsey v. TGT Consulting, LLC, 888 F.Supp.2d 670, 685 (D.Md. 2012).

See, e.g. , Dorsey v. TGT Consulting, LLC , 888 F. Supp. 2d 670 , n. 7 (D.

Here, the “court engages in a more stringent inquiry to determine whether the plaintiff class is [in fact] ‘similarly situated’ in accordance with the requirements of [Section] 216, and renders a final decision regarding the propriety of the proceeding as a collective action.” Butler v. DirectSAT USA, LLC, 47 F.Supp.3d 300, 306 (D.Md. 2014) (quoting Dorsey v. TGT Consulting, LLC, 888 F.Supp.2d 670, 686 (D.Md. 2012).

Iowa 2013); Dorsey v. TGT Consulting, LLC, 888 F. Supp. 2d 670, 686 (D.

Tip Credit Notice The FLSA requires an employer who wishes to claim tip credits toward the wages of its tipped employees to “inform[] its tipped employees in advance of the employer’s use of the tip credit” by providing the employee with notice of the base cash wage and the amount of the tip credit increase, including that the tip credit amount “may not exceed the value of the tips actually received by the employee;” as well as notice “that all tips received by the tipped em…

As explained in the September 18, 2014 opinion, in the second and final stage of the certification process: the “court engages in a more stringent inquiry to determine whether the plaintiff class is [in fact] ‘similarly situated’ in ae cordance with the requirements of [Section] 216, and renders a final decision regarding the propriety of proceeding as a collective action.” Dorsey v. TGT Consulting, LLC, 888 F.Supp.2d 670, 686 (D.Md.2012) (quoting Syrja [u Westat, Inc., 756 …

“The FLSA requires covered employers to pay ‘nonexempt employees’ a minimum wage for each hour worked, 29 U.S.C. § 206 (a), but allows employers to pay less than the minimum wage to employees who receive tips, 29 U.S.C. § 203 (m).” Dorsey v. TGT Consulting, LLC, 888 F.Supp.2d 670, 680 (D.Md.2012).

Specifically, the issue here turns on whether Defendants were entitled to take a “tip credit” to satisfy these minimum wage and overtime rate requirements. 29 U.S.C. § 203 (m); Gionfriddo v. Jason Zink, LLC, 769 F.Supp.2d 880, 893 (D.Md.2011) (“Tipped employees ... are required to receive at least the minimum wage, but their employers are permitted to pay a direct wage of $2.13 per hour and then take a ‘tip credit’ to meet the $7.25 per hour minimum wage requirement.”) Secti…

See Kilgore, 160 F.3d at 298; see also Dorsey v. TGT Consulting, LLC, 888 F.Supp.2d 670, 682 (D.Md.2012) (concluding that employee earning statements that did not contain reference to the federal minimum wage were insufficient to inform employees of tip credit).

See Dorsey v. TGT Consulting, LLC, 888 F. Supp. 2d 670, 686 (D.

See, e.g., Dorsey v. TGT Consulting, LLC, 888 F.Supp.2d 670, 683-84 (D.Md.2012)(finding a genuine issue of material fact at summary judgment when no written notice had been provided and testimony from plaintiff and defendant contradicted each other on whether oral notification took place).