We have filed cases against Starbucks in Massachusetts and New York on behalf of baristas challenging the company’s practice of requiring tips to be shared with shift supervisors.  While we agree that shift supervisors should be paid more than baristas to account for the additional duties they hold, we believe that the laws of Massachusetts and New York require that any pay received by supervisors come from the employer and not from a tip pool; the legislatures of these states have passed strict laws to protect the tips of non-supervisory service workers.

The Massachusetts federal court has agreed with our interpretation, ruling that Starbucks’ tip sharing policy violates the law of Massachusetts, which requires that only employees with no managerial responsibility may share in tip pools.  The magistrate judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and class certification, which was affirmed by the district court in March 2011.  Thus, under this ruling, anyone who has worked as a barista for Starbucks in Massachusetts at any time since March 2005 is entitled to a refund from Starbucks of the amount of tips that they lost due to their sharing of tips with shift supervisors.  We will keep class members informed on this website about further proceedings in this case. 

In New York, the federal court dismissed our case finding that shift supervisors can participate in a tip pool under New York law.  We have appealed this ruling and are awaiting the outcome of the appeal.  We have asked the federal appeals court to certify the case to the state’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals, for a definitive legal ruling on which employees may share in a tip pool.   

In 2008, a California court found Starbucks to be in violation of California law for allowing shift supervisors to participate in the tip pool.  The court ordered Starbucks to pay back baristas more than $100 million for tips that were shared with supervisors. This ruling was reversed by an intermediate appellate court, and the California Supreme Court denied further review.  The California law is written differently from the laws in Massachusetts and New York, and so we believe the appellate ruling has no bearing on our other cases, a conclusion with which the judge in the Massachusetts case has agreed. 

To read more about these cases, read the links below:

Baristas want Starbucks to pour out $32M in tip pool suit
Law 360 | December, 2011

1st Cir. lets class cert. stand for Starbucks baristas
Law 360 | June, 2011

Baristas' suit against Starbucks may proceed as class action in Mass. federal court
The National Law Journal | March, 2011

Starbucks supervisors can't share in tips, Judge says
Employment Law 360 | March, 2011

Starbucks unfairly split Mass. Baristas' tips: Judge
Employment Law 360 | February, 2011

Starbucks Baristas fight toss of tip-sharing action
Employment Law 360 | December, 2010

Calif. ruling doesn't slow Starbucks tips suit
Employment Law 360 | October, 2009

N.Y. baristas want class cert. in tips spat
Employment Law 360 | February, 2009

N.Y. barista is latest to sue Starbucks over tips
Employment Law 360 | April, 2008

Starbucks supervisors accused of skimming tips from baristas
Associated Press | March, 2008

Starbucks hit with class action lawsuit over tips
Boston Globe | March, 2008

Starbucks sued again over tip pools
Seattle PI | March, 2008

OTHER TIP CASES

SKYCAPS TIPS CASES »

ALL OTHER TIPS CASES »