The employee must receive more than $30 a month in tips “customarily and regularly” in the occupation in which he is engaged in order to qualify as a tipped employee under section 3(t). If it is known that he always receives more than the stipulated amount each month, as may be the case with many employees in occupations such as those of waiters, bellhops, taxicab drivers, barbers, or beauty operators, the employee will qualify and the tip credit provisions of section 3(m) may be applied. On the other hand, an employee who only occasionally or sporadically receives tips totaling more than $30 a month, such as at Christmas or New Years when customers may be more generous than usual, will not be deemed a tipped employee. The phrase “customarily and regularly” signifies a frequency which must be greater than occasional, but which may be less than constant. If an employee is in an occupation in which he normally and recurrently receives more than $30 a month in tips, he will be considered a tipped employee even though occasionally because of sickness, vacation, seasonal fluctuations or the like, he fails to receive more than $30 in tips in a particular month.
[32 FR 13575, Sept. 28, 1967, as amended at 76 FR 18855, Apr. 5, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
Montano v. Montrose Restaurant Assocs., Inc., 800 F.3d 186 (5th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 2× “” See 29 C.F.R. § 531.57 . Here, the focus is not on the customer but rather on the employee and whether that employee actually receives tips with sufficient frequency.”
Pedigo v. Austin Rumba, Inc., 722 F. Supp. 2d 714 (W.D. Tex. 2010).
“” See 29 C.F.R. § 531.57 . Notwithstanding this definitional guidance, “[njeither the language of FLSA nor the relevant regulations provide much clear guidance regarding which employees or occupations may participate in mandatory tip pools or tip sharing arrangements .”
Pellon v. Bus. Representation Int'l, Inc., 528 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (S.D. Fla. 2007).
“29 C.F.R. § 531.57 . It is clear to the Court that skycaps are most similar to waitresses under Department of Labor regulations, even taking the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs.”
Garcia v. Palomino, Inc., 738 F. Supp. 2d 1171 (D. Kan. 2010).
“29 C.F.R. § 531.57 . 39 . See S.Rep. No. 93-690, at 43 (1974); Dept.”
Ford v. Lehigh Valley Restaurant Grp. Inc., 47 Pa. D. & C.5th 157 (2015).
· cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 531.57 . The Pennsylvania Code does not include a comparable regulatory definition of the phrase “customarily and regularly” for purposes of Section 3(d) of the MWA.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.