Tip Regulations Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 86756-86792 [2020-28555]
Download as PDF
86756
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
29 CFR Part 10
Wage and Hour Division
29 CFR Parts 516, 531, 578, 579, and
580
RIN 1235–AA21
Tip Regulations Under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA)
Wage and Hour Division,
Department of Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2018 (CAA),
Congress amended section 3(m) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to
prohibit employers from keeping tips
received by their employees, regardless
of whether the employers take a tip
credit under section 3(m). In this final
rule, the Department of Labor
(Department) amends its tip regulations
to address these amendments. The final
rule also codifies the Department’s
guidance regarding the tip credit’s
application to employees who perform
tipped and non-tipped duties.
DATES: This final rule is effective March
1, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy DeBisschop, Director of the
Division of Regulations, Legislation, and
Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division,
U.S. Department of Labor, Room S–
3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20210, telephone: (202)
693–0406 (this is not a toll-free
number). Copies of this final rule may
be obtained in alternative formats (Large
Print, Braille, Audio Tape, or Disc),
upon request, by calling (202) 693–0675
(this is not a toll-free number). TTY/
TDD callers may dial toll-free (877) 889–
5627 to obtain information or request
materials in alternative formats.
Questions of interpretation or
enforcement of the agency’s existing
regulations may be directed to the
nearest WHD district office. Locate the
nearest office by calling the WHD’s tollfree help line at (866) 4US–WAGE ((866)
487–9243) between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. in
your local time zone, or log onto WHD’s
website at https://www.dol.gov/
agencies/whd/contact/local-offices for a
nationwide listing of WHD district and
area offices.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Executive Summary
The FLSA generally requires covered
employers to pay their employees at
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
least the Federal minimum wage, which
is currently $7.25 per hour. See 29
U.S.C. 206(a)(1). As amended, section
3(m) of the FLSA allows an employer
that satisfies certain requirements to
count a limited amount of the tips
received by its ‘‘tipped employees’’ as a
credit toward its Federal minimum
wage obligation (known as a ‘‘tip
credit’’). See 29 U.S.C. 203(m)(2)(A). An
employer may take a tip credit only for
‘‘tipped employees’’ and only if, among
other things, its tipped employees retain
all their tips. Id. This requirement does
not, however, preclude an employer that
takes a tip credit from implementing a
tip pool in which tips are shared only
among those employees who
‘‘customarily and regularly receive
tips.’’ Id.
In 2011, the Department revised its tip
regulations to reflect its view at the time
that, regardless of whether their
employer takes a tip credit, the FLSA
required that tipped employees retain
all tips they received, except tips
distributed through a tip pool limited to
employees who customarily and
regularly receive tips. (76 FR 18855)
See, e.g., 29 CFR 531.52. On December
5, 2017, the Department published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM),
82 FR 57395, which proposed to rescind
the parts of its tip regulations that
applied to employers that pay a direct
cash wage of at least the full Federal
minimum wage and do not take a tip
credit.
On March 23, 2018, Congress
amended section 3(m) of the FLSA in
the CAA, Public Law 115–141, Div. S.,
Tit. XII, sec. 1201, 132 Stat. 348, 1148–
49 (2018). Among other things, the CAA
revised section 3(m) by renumbering the
existing tip credit language as section
3(m)(2)(A) and adding a new section
3(m)(2)(B). That new section prohibits
employers from keeping their
employees’ tips ‘‘for any purposes,
including allowing managers or
supervisors to keep any portion of
employees’ tips’’ even if they do not
claim a tip credit. In addition, the CAA
amended sections 16(b) and 16(c) of the
FLSA to permit private parties and the
Department to recover any tips
unlawfully kept by an employer in
violation of section 3(m)(2)(B), in
addition to an equal amount of
liquidated damages. Finally, the CAA
amended section 16(e) of the FLSA to
give the Department discretion to
impose civil money penalties (CMPs) up
to $1,100 when employers unlawfully
keep employees’ tips. On October 8,
2019, the Department issued a new
NPRM proposing, among other things,
to update its tip regulations to
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
incorporate the CAA amendments (84
FR 53956).
Congress specified in the CAA that
the portions of the 2011 final rule that
‘‘are not addressed by section 3(m) . . .
(as such section was in effect on April
5, 2011), shall have no further force or
effect until any future action taken by
[the Department of Labor].’’ CAA, Div.
S, Tit. XII, sec. 1201(c). As the
Department explained in a Field
Assistance Bulletin (FAB) published
shortly thereafter, that statement applies
to those portions of the Department’s
regulations—§§ 531.52, 531.54, and
531.59—that restricted tip pooling by
employers that pay tipped employees at
least the full minimum wage as a direct
cash wage and, therefore, do not claim
a tip credit. See FAB No. 2018–3 (Apr.
6, 2018).1 In light of the CAA’s
amendments to the FLSA, the
Department’s 2019 NPRM withdrew the
2017 NPRM, which addressed the same
topic as those amendments. 84 FR
53956.
This final rule revises the
Department’s current tip pooling
regulations in light of the 2018 CAA
amendments. The CAA did not change
the statutory requirements, now in
section 3(m)(2)(A) of the FLSA, that
apply to employers that take a tip credit.
Those employers may continue to
institute a mandatory ‘‘traditional’’ tip
pool, that is, a tip pool limited to
employees who ‘‘customarily and
regularly’’ receive tips. In addition, the
CAA removed the regulatory restrictions
on an employer’s ability to require tip
pooling when it does not take a tip
credit; those employers may now
implement mandatory, ‘‘nontraditional’’
tip pools, which include employees
who do not customarily and regularly
receive tips, such as cooks and
dishwashers.
The CAA also imposed a new
prohibition, in section 3(m)(2)(B), that
applies to all employers regardless of
whether they take a tip credit:
Employers may not keep employees’
tips and may not allow managers or
supervisors to do so. Among other
things, section 3(m)(2)(B) prohibits
employers, managers, and supervisors
from receiving employees’ tips as part of
any tip pooling arrangement. It also
prohibits employers from operating tip
pools in any manner such that they
‘‘keep’’ tips.
This final rule updates the
Department’s tip regulations to
incorporate the CAA’s amendments to
the FLSA. As explained above, the CAA
renumbered the FLSA’s existing tip
1 https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/
legacy/files/fab2018_3.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
credit language as section 3(m)(2)(A),
but made no substantive changes to that
language. As a result, this rule does not
alter the Department’s existing
regulations and guidance regarding
section 3(m)(2)(A) for employers that
claim a tip credit. Those regulations are
addressed only as necessary to clarify
how they relate to the CAA’s
amendments to the FLSA. In this rule,
the Department makes the following
three substantive changes to regulations
concerning tips. First, the rule
incorporates the new statutory language,
section 3(m)(2)(B)—which applies
whether or not the employer takes a tip
credit—into the Department’s
regulations and incorporates a new
recordkeeping requirement to help it
administer the new statutory language.
Second, this rule, consistent with the
CAA’s amendments, removes the
portions of the Department’s regulations
that prohibited certain employers—
those that pay their tipped employees a
direct cash wage of at least the full
Federal minimum wage and do not take
a tip credit against their minimum wage
obligations—from including employees
who do not customarily and regularly
receive tips, such as cooks and
dishwashers, in mandatory tip pooling
arrangements. Third, this rule amends
the Department’s regulations to reflect
recent guidance explaining that an
employer may take a tip credit for time
that an employee in a tipped occupation
spends performing related, non-tipped
duties contemporaneously with tipped
duties, or for a reasonable time
immediately before or after performing
the tipped duties. These amended
regulations also address which nontipped duties are related to a tipproducing occupation.
Additionally, the Department
incorporates the CAA’s new language
regarding CMPs into its regulations. The
Department also takes this opportunity
to revise portions of its CMP regulations
on willful violations (specifically, 29
CFR 578.3 and 579.2). It does so to make
the regulatory language consistent with
the way the Department actually
litigates willfulness issues and to
address the appellate courts that have,
for example, ‘‘urge[d]’’ it to reconsider
those regulations to ensure their
consistency with the Supreme Court’s
interpretation of the meaning of
‘‘willful’’ in the FLSA.
Finally, the Department amends the
portions of its regulations that address
the payment of tipped employees under
Executive Order 13658, Establishing a
Minimum Wage for Contractors, to
reflect rescissions in the FLSA
regulations for tipped employees,
incorporate the Department’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
explanation of when an employee
performing non-tipped work is a tipped
employee, and otherwise align those
regulations with the Executive order.
The Department estimates this final
rule could result in a potential transfer
of $109 million, as tip pools are
expanded from front-of-the-house
employees alone to include back-of-thehouse employees. A directly observable
transfer would occur only among
employees because section 3(m)(2)(B)
prohibits employers from participating
in these tip pools or otherwise keeping
employees’ tips. However, assuming the
shared tips are large enough to maintain
wage levels for all workers in the tip
pool, the Department acknowledges that
some employers could potentially offset
some of the increase in total
compensation received by back-of-thehouse workers by reducing the direct
wage that they pay those workers (as
long as they do not reduce their wage
below the applicable minimum wage),
and such an outcome is what is
modeled to produce the $109 million
estimate of transfers from employees to
employers. The rule may also result in
transfers to workers as employers who
adopt tip pools containing back-of-thehouse workers may not take a tip credit
for their front-of-the-house staff. The
Department also acknowledges the
possibility that some transfers could
occur as a result of the changes to the
regulations involving when an employer
may take a tip credit, but the
Department is unable to estimate the
likelihood or magnitude of these
transfers. The Department estimates that
regulatory familiarization costs
associated with this final rule would be
$3.86 million in the first year.
This rule is considered an E.O. 13771
deregulatory action. Details on the
estimated cost savings of this rule can
be found in the rule’s economic
analysis. The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs designated this rule
as a ‘major rule,’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2), under the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.).
II. Background
A. Section 3(m)
Section 6(a) of the FLSA requires
covered employers to pay their
nonexempt employees a minimum wage
of at least $7.25 per hour. 29 U.S.C.
206(a). Section 3(m)(2)(A) allows an
employer to satisfy a portion of its
minimum wage obligation to any
‘‘tipped employee’’ by taking a partial
credit toward the minimum wage based
on tips an employee receives. Id.
203(m)(2)(A). Section 3(t) defines
‘‘tipped employee’’ as ‘‘any employee
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
86757
engaged in an occupation in which he
customarily and regularly receives more
than $30 a month in tips.’’ Id. 203(t). An
employer that elects to take a tip credit
must pay the tipped employee a direct
cash wage of at least $2.13 per hour. The
employer may then take a credit against
its wage obligation for the difference—
up to $5.12 per hour—in tips received
by the employee if the cash wage plus
the employee’s tips equal at least the
minimum wage. If the employee does
not earn sufficient tips to bring his or
her hourly earnings to the minimum
wage, the employer must pay any
additional wages required to make up
the difference. If the employee’s cash
wage plus tips exceeds the minimum
wage, the employer must still pay a cash
wage of at least $2.13 per hour. An
employer may take a tip credit only if,
among other things, the tipped
employees retain all the tips they
receive. An employer taking a tip credit
is also allowed to implement a
mandatory tip pool in which tips are
shared only among employees who
‘‘customarily and regularly receive
tips.’’
Under section 3(m)(2)(B) of the FLSA,
added by the CAA, ‘‘an employer may
not keep tips received by its employees
for any purposes, including allowing
managers or supervisors to keep any
portion of employees’ tips.’’ See Div. S.,
Tit. XII, sec.1201. Section 3(m)(2)(B)
applies regardless of whether an
employer takes a tip credit.
B. Statutory and Regulatory History
i. 1966 and 1974 Amendments to the
FLSA 2
Congress created the FLSA’s tip credit
in 1966 by amending the definition of
‘‘wage’’ in section 3(m). See Public Law
89–601, sec. 101(a), 80 Stat. 830 (1966).
The Department promulgated its initial
tip regulations the following year. See
32 FR 13575 (Sep. 28, 1967). In 1974,
Congress amended section 3(m) to
prohibit an employer from taking a tip
credit unless, among other things, ‘‘all
tips received by [an] employee have
been retained by the employee, except
that this subsection shall not be
construed to prohibit the pooling of tips
among employees who customarily and
regularly receive tips.’’ Public Law 93–
259, sec. 13(e), 88 Stat. 55 (1974). As a
result, an employer that takes a tip
2 Congress also amended section 3(m)’s tip credit
language in 1977, 1989, and 1996. These
amendments changed only the amount of tips
received by employees that could be credited
toward an employer’s minimum wage obligations.
See Public Law 95–151, sec. 3(b), 91 Stat. 1245
(1977); Public Law 101–157, sec. 5, 103 Stat. 938
(1989); Public Law 104–188, sec. 2105(b), 110 Stat.
1755 (1996).
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
86758
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
credit may require a tipped employee to
share tips with other employees engaged
in occupations that customarily and
regularly receive tips, but it cannot use
employees’ tips for any other purpose or
require tipped employees to share them
with employees who do not customarily
and regularly receive tips. By setting
conditions under which an employer
may take a tip credit, the statute makes
plain that Congress intended these
conditions to apply only to employers
who take such a credit. Section
3(m)(2)(A) contains no indication that
Congress intended for these restrictions
to apply to employers that do not take
a tip credit and that use tip pools for
other purposes, such as by sharing tips
with ‘‘back-of-the-house’’ employees
like cooks and dishwashers.
The Ninth Circuit reached this same
conclusion in 2010, observing that
‘‘nothing in the text of the FLSA
purports to restrict employee tippooling arrangements when no tip
credit is taken.’’ Cumbie v. Woody Woo,
Inc., 596 F.3d 577, 583 (9th Cir. 2010).
It reasoned that section 3(m)’s ‘‘plain
text’’ merely ‘‘imposes conditions on
taking a tip credit and does not state
freestanding requirements pertaining to
all tipped employees.’’ Id. at 580–81.
The contrary position, the court
concluded, would render section 3(m)’s
‘‘reference to the tip credit, as well as its
conditional language and structure,
superfluous.’’ Id. at 581. It accordingly
held that the employer, which did not
take a tip credit, did not violate section
3(m) by requiring its tipped employees
to contribute to a tip pool that included
employees who were not customarily
and regularly tipped. See id.
ii. 2011 Regulations
The Department did not promulgate
regulations addressing the 1974
amendments to the FLSA’s tip credit
language until 37 years later. See 76 FR
18832, 18854–56 (Apr. 5, 2011). Though
issued after the Cumbie decision, the
2011 regulations prohibited employers
from, among other things, establishing
mandatory tip pools that include
employees who are not customarily and
regularly tipped—whether the
employers took a tip credit or not. See
29 CFR 531.52 (2011) (‘‘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.’’). See
also 29 CFR 531.54 (‘‘an employer . . .
may not retain any of the employees’
tips’’); 531.59 (‘‘With the exception of
tips contributed to a valid tip pool as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
described in § 531.54, the tip credit
provisions of section 3(m) also require
employers to permit employees to retain
all tips received by the employee.’’). The
Department acknowledged that section
3(m) did not expressly address the use
of an employee’s tips when an employer
does not take a tip credit and pays a
direct cash wage equal to or greater than
the minimum wage, but stated that the
regulation would fill a ‘‘gap’’ that the
Department then believed to exist in the
statutory scheme. 76 FR 18841–42.
Multiple lawsuits challenged the
Department’s authority under section
3(m) to regulate employers that pay a
direct cash wage of at least the Federal
minimum wage. The parties challenging
the validity of the 2011 regulations
argued, and several courts ruling in
favor of those parties recognized, that
section 3(m)’s text reflected Congress’
intent to impose conditions only on
employers that take a tip credit. See,
e.g., Malivuk v. Ameripark, LLC, No. 15–
2570, 2016 WL 3999878, at *4 (N.D. Ga.
July 26, 2016) (agreeing that ‘‘Section
203(m) only imposed a condition on
employers who take a tip credit, rather
than a blanket requirement on all
employers regardless of whether they
take a tip credit.’’); Trinidad v. Pret A
Manger (USA) Ltd., 962 F. Supp. 2d 545,
562 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (‘‘Although the
Court need not resolve this issue
definitively . . . [it] finds Pret’s
argument more persuasive: The DOL
regulations are contrary to the plain
language of § 203(m).’’).
In 2016, a divided Ninth Circuit panel
upheld the validity of the 2011
regulations. See Oregon Rest. & Lodging
Ass’n (ORLA) v. Perez, 816 F.3d 1080,
1090 (9th Cir. 2016). Although the Ninth
Circuit declined en banc review of the
decision, ten judges dissented on the
ground that the FLSA authorized the
Department to address tip pooling and
tip retention only when an employer
takes a tip credit. 843 F.3d 355, 356 (9th
Cir. 2016) (O’Scannlain, J., dissenting
from denial of reh’g en banc). The
dissent noted that the Ninth Circuit
itself had decided in Cumbie that the
FLSA ‘‘clearly and unambiguously
permits employers who forgo a tip
credit to arrange their tip-pooling affairs
however they see fit.’’ Id. at 358 (citing
Cumbie, 596 F.3d at 579 n.6, 581–83).
The dissent therefore concluded that
‘‘because the Department [had] not been
delegated authority to ban tip pooling
by employers who forgo the tip credit,
the Department’s assertion of regulatory
jurisdiction [was] manifestly contrary to
the statute and exceed[ed] its statutory
authority.’’ Id. at 363 (internal quotation
marks omitted). The National Restaurant
Association, on behalf of itself and other
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
ORLA plaintiffs, sought U.S. Supreme
Court review. See Pet. for Writ of Cert.,
Nat’l Rest. Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor,
No. 16–920, 2017 WL 360483, (U.S. Jan.
19, 2017).
While the National Restaurant
Association’s petition was pending, the
Tenth Circuit issued a conflicting
decision, ruling that the 2011 tip
regulations were invalid to the extent
they barred an employer from using or
sharing tips with employees who do not
customarily and regularly receive tips
when the employer pays a direct cash
wage of at least the Federal minimum
wage and does not take a section 3(m)
tip credit. See Marlow v. New Food Guy,
Inc., 861 F.3d 1157, 1159 (10th Cir.
2017). The Tenth Circuit held that the
text of the FLSA limits an employer’s
use of tips only when the employer
takes a tip credit, ‘‘leaving [the
Department] without authority to
regulate to the contrary.’’ See Marlow,
861 F.3d at 1163–64.
In light of the conflicting decisions
from the Federal courts of appeals, the
Department adopted a nationwide
‘‘nonenforcement policy’’ under which
it would ‘‘not enforce’’ the 2011
regulations in any context in which an
employer pays its employees a direct
cash wage of at least the Federal
minimum wage. See 82 FR 57395, 57399
(Dec. 5, 2017).
In its 2018 response to the petition for
a writ of certiorari in the ORLA case, the
Government explained that the
Department had reconsidered its
defense of the 2011 regulations in light
of the Ninth Circuit’s ten-judge dissent
from denial of rehearing in ORLA and
the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Marlow.
That reconsideration had led the
Department to conclude that it had
exceeded its statutory authority in
promulgating those regulations to the
extent they apply to employers that do
not take a tip credit against their Federal
minimum wage obligations: ‘‘[U]ntil the
2018 [congressional] amendments,
Section 203(m) placed limits only on
employers that took a tip credit,’’ and
‘‘[n]either Section 203(m) nor any other
provision of the FLSA prevents an
employer that pays at least the
minimum wage from instituting a
nontraditional tip pool [that includes
back-of-the-house employees like cooks
and janitors] for employees’ tips.’’ Br.
for Resps. at 26–27, Nat’l Rest. Ass’n.
(May 22, 2018). The government also
noted that the Department had
published in December 2017 an NPRM
that proposed to rescind the challenged
portions of the regulations. Id. at 10.
Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court
denied the petition. 138 S. Ct. 2697
(2018).
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
iii. 2017 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On December 5, 2017, the Department
published an NPRM proposing to
rescind the portions of its 2011 tip
regulations that imposed restrictions on
employers that pay a direct cash wage
of at least the full Federal minimum
wage and do not take a tip credit against
their minimum wage obligations. See 82
FR 57395 (Dec. 5, 2017). It did so in part
because of its concerns at the time, in
light of Marlow and the dissent from the
denial of rehearing in ORLA, that it had
misconstrued the statute when it
promulgated the 2011 regulations. See
82 FR 57399. The Department stated
that where ‘‘an employer has paid a
direct cash wage of at least the full
federal minimum wage and does not
take the employee tips directly, a strong
argument exists that the statutory
protections of section 3(m) do not
apply.’’ 82 FR 57402. The Department
also proposed allowing these employers
to establish tip pools that include
employees who contribute to the
customers’ experience but do not
customarily and regularly receive tips,
such as dishwashers or cooks. See, e.g.,
82 FR 57399.
A number of commenters on the 2017
NPRM supported allowing employers to
establish these tip pools. Several
commenters pointed out that these
workers contribute to each customer’s
overall service, which directly affects
the size of the customer’s tip. Many
commenters, however, expressed
concern that employers would take tips
received by employees for its own
purposes.
During a hearing on March 6, 2018,
before the Subcommittee on Labor,
Health and Human Services, and
Education of the U.S. House of
Representatives Committee on
Appropriations, Secretary of Labor R.
Alexander Acosta was asked about the
proposed rulemaking. The Secretary
explained that the Tenth Circuit had
made clear in Marlow, in reasoning the
Secretary found persuasive, that the
Department lacked statutory authority
for its 2011 regulations at issue. He
noted that Congress had the authority to
implement a solution, and he suggested
that Congress enact legislation stating
that establishments, whether or not they
take a tip credit, may not keep any
portion of employees’ tips.3
C. The CAA’s Amendments to the FLSA
Later that month, Congress enacted
the CAA, amending the FLSA to address
employers’ practices with respect to
3 A recording of the testimony is available at
https://www.congress.gov/committees/video/houseappropriations/hsap00/6Weo1vfNM1k.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
their employees’ tips. Public Law 115–
141, Div. S., Tit. XII, sec. 1201. Shortly
thereafter, the Department issued a FAB
concerning the Wage and Hour
Division’s (WHD) enforcement of the
CAA amendments. See FAB No. 2018–
3 (Apr. 6, 2018).
i. Amendments to Section 3(m) of the
FLSA
The CAA left unchanged section
3(m)’s then-existing text, renumbered as
section 3(m)(2)(A), preserving the
longstanding requirements that apply to
employers that take a tip credit. It also
added a new section 3(m)(2)(B) to the
FLSA, which states that ‘‘[a]n employer
may not keep tips received by its
employees for any purposes, including
allowing managers or supervisors to
keep any portion of employees’ tips,
regardless of whether or not the
employer takes a tip credit.’’ CAA, Div.
S, Tit. XII, sec. 1201(a) (codified at 29
U.S.C. 203(m)(2)(B)); see FAB No. 2018–
3 (Apr. 6, 2018).
ii. Effect on Regulations
Section 1201(c) of the CAA expressly
addressed the portions of the
Department’s 2011 regulations that
restricted tip pooling when employers
pay tipped employees a direct cash
wage of at least the full FLSA minimum
wage and do not take a tip credit. CAA,
Div. S, Tit. XII, sec. 1201(c). Under that
section, the portions of the regulations
at 29 CFR 531.52, 531.54, and 531.59
that were ‘‘not addressed by section
3(m) . . . (as such section was in effect
on April 5, 2011), shall have no further
force or effect until any future action
taken by [the Department of Labor].’’
The Department explained in FAB No.
2018–3 that this language effectively
suspended the Department’s existing
regulations prohibiting employers that
pay tipped employees the full Federal
minimum wage from including back-ofthe-house workers, such as cooks and
dishwashers, in a tip pool.
iii. Amendments to Section 16 of the
FLSA
Section 16(b) of the FLSA allows
employees to sue for unpaid minimum
wages or overtime compensation. The
CAA amended that section to add that
‘‘[a]ny employer who violates section
3(m)(2)(B) shall be liable to the
employee or employees affected in the
amount of the sum of any tip credit
taken by the employer and all such tips
unlawfully kept by the employer, and in
an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages.’’ CAA, Div. S, Tit.
XII, sec. 1201(b)(1).
Section 16(c) of the FLSA authorizes
the Department to enforce the payment
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
86759
of unpaid minimum wages and unpaid
overtime compensation. The CAA
amended that section to add to the
Department’s enforcement authority:
‘‘The authority and requirements
described in this subsection shall apply
with respect to a violation of section
3(m)(2)(B), as appropriate, and the
employer shall be liable for the amount
of the sum of any tip credit taken by the
employer and all such tips unlawfully
kept by the employer, and an additional
equal amount as liquidated damages.’’
CAA, Div. S, Tit. XII, sec. 1201(b)(2).
Under section 16(e)(2), repeated or
willful violators of the FLSA’s
minimum wage and overtime
requirements are subject to a CMP not
to exceed $1,100 for each such
violation.4 The CAA amended this
section to add a CMP for violations of
section 3(m)(2)(B): ‘‘Any person who
violates section 3(m)(2)(B) shall be
subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$1,100 for each such violation, as the
Secretary determines appropriate, in
addition to being liable to the employee
or employees affected for all tips
unlawfully kept, and an additional
equal amount as liquidated damages[.]’’
D. The Dual Jobs Regulation
The CAA’s changes to the FLSA, in
conjunction with subregulatory
guidance the Department issued in
2018, have illuminated the need to
harmonize and update the Department’s
‘‘dual jobs’’ regulation, codified at 29
CFR 531.56(e). The dual jobs regulation
addresses when an employer can take a
tip credit for time that an employee in
a tipped occupation spends performing
duties that do not directly result in tips
for that employee.5
The dual jobs regulation, § 531.56(e),
was introduced in 1967 as part of the
Department’s first final rule addressing
tipped employment. 32 FR 13575; see
29 CFR 531.50 through 531.60. The
‘‘dual jobs’’ regulation was not
contemplated in the notice proposing
that rule, see 32 FR 222–227 (Jan. 10,
1967), but was added as part of the final
rule. Under the regulation, an employee
who works for the same employer in
4 The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment
Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–410), as amended by the
Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L.
104–134, sec. 31001(s)) and the Federal Civil
Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements
Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114–74, sec. 701), requires that
inflationary adjustments be made annually in these
civil money penalties according to a specified
formula.
5 As explained further below, there are a number
of duties that may contribute to the tipped worker’s
tips, but which are performed by other employees
who do not directly receive tips for their work (e.g.,
the cook at a restaurant makes the food which the
server delivers to a table, but only the server
receives a tip for that work).
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
86760
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
both a tipped occupation and a nontipped occupation is a ‘‘tipped
employee’’ for purposes of section 3(t)
of the FLSA only while employed in the
tipped occupation. Therefore, an
employer may take a tip credit against
its minimum wage obligations only for
the hours the employee spends in the
tipped occupation. It may not take a tip
credit for the time spent in a non-tipped
occupation.
Section 531.56(e) also distinguishes
between employees who have dual jobs
and tipped employees who perform
‘‘related duties’’ that are not themselves
directed toward producing tips. It uses
the example of a server who ‘‘spends
part of her time’’ performing non-tipped
duties, such as ‘‘cleaning and setting
tables, toasting bread, making coffee,
and occasionally washing dishes or
glasses.’’ In that example, the employee
is still engaged in the tipped occupation
of a server, for which the employer may
take a tip credit, rather than working
part of the time in a non-tipped
occupation. 29 CFR 531.56(e). But that
is as far as the regulation goes. It does
not set forth or explain criteria for
determining whether particular nontipped duties are related to a tipped
occupation. It does not set forth or
explain criteria for determining when an
employee is performing duties unrelated
to his or her tipped occupation and
therefore engaged in a dual job. Nor
does it explain whether or when an
employee who performs related nontipped duties more than ‘‘part of the
time’’ or ‘‘occasionally’’ might cease
being employed in a tipped occupation
and instead be engaged in a non-tipped
occupation. Nor does it even give
examples illustrating activities that
would be considered (or not considered)
related duties for workers other than
those in restaurants.
Section 531.56(e) did not define
‘‘related duties,’’ ‘‘part of the time,’’ or
‘‘occasionally,’’ and this lack of
precision creates a need for clarification.
WHD over the years attempted to clarify
this rule through subregulatory
guidance, but this piecemeal approach
was insufficient. Cf. Perez v. Mortg.
Bankers Ass’n, 575 U.S. 92, 112–13
(2015) (Scalia, J., concurring) (‘‘There
are weighty reasons to deny a lawgiver
the power to write ambiguous laws and
then be the judge of what the ambiguity
means.’’). For example, following the
1974 statutory amendments to section
3(m) of the FLSA, WHD issued three
opinion letters that address this issue. In
1977, WHD addressed whether workers
employed as ‘‘salad preparation
persons’’ could participate in a tip
pooling arrangement. WHD concluded
that salad-preparation personnel could
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
not participate in a tip pool as they ‘‘are
essentially chefs’’ who ‘‘prepare food in
the kitchen as any chef ordinarily
would[,]’’ and rather than serving food
to customers, ‘‘their basic duty outside
the kitchen is to keep the buffet tables
clean and replenish food as needed.’’
WHD Opinion Letter FLSA–623 (June 3,
1977).6
In 1979, WHD addressed servers who
‘‘report to work two hours before the
doors are opened to the public to
prepare the vegetables for the salad
bar.’’ WHD Opinion Letter FLSA–895
(Aug. 8, 1979). WHD opined that the
employer could not claim a tip credit for
those two hours because ‘‘salad
preparation activities are essentially
. . . [those] performed by chefs.’’ Id.
(citing WHD Opinion Letter FLSA–623
(June 3, 1977)).
In 1980, WHD addressed whether the
tip credit applied to servers in a
restaurant who, as part of their closing
duties, cleaned the salad bar, placed
condiment crocks in the cooler, cleaned
and stocked the server station, cleaned
and reset the tables (including filling
cheese, salt, and pepper shakers), and
vacuumed the dining room carpet. See
WHD Opinion Letter (Mar. 28, 1980).
WHD opined that the employees would
be considered tipped employees for this
period because they were not engaged in
a dual occupation. WHD noted that the
after-hours cleanup duties were
‘‘assigned generally to the [server] staff’’
at the establishment. Id. WHD did not
explain why it concluded that tearing
down and cleaning the salad bar was a
tipped server’s duty but preparing
vegetables for that same salad bar was
a non-tipped chef’s duty. The letter
suggested that if ‘‘specific employees
were routinely assigned, for example,
maintenance-type work such as floor
vacuuming,’’ the employer would have
been precluded from claiming a tip
credit for the time the specific
employees spent performing those
maintenance activities. Id.
Finally, in 1985, WHD addressed
whether a server who, during a 5-hour
shift, performed 1.5 to 2 hours of
preparatory work before the restaurant
opened, could be paid the tip-credit rate
for the time spent performing those
preparatory activities. WHD Opinion
Letter (Dec. 20, 1985). The preparatory
work included a variety of tasks such as
setting tables, preparing coffee, and
salad preparation. WHD repeated, but
did not elaborate upon or explain, its
earlier statements that ‘‘salad
6 The letter cited legislative history to support its
conclusion that chefs were among the ‘‘employees
who have not customarily and regularly
participated in tip pools.’’ Id. (citing S. Rep. 93–690
(1974) at 43).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
preparation activities are essentially the
activities performed by chefs’’ for which
the employer could not take a tip credit.
WHD then concluded that because only
one employee was assigned to the nonsalad preparatory work, the employee
was responsible for preparing the entire
restaurant, not just his or her area. The
employee spent 30 percent to 40 percent
of the entire shift on those duties. Such
a ‘‘substantial portion’’ of the workday
spent ‘‘performing general preparation
or maintenance’’ work was too extensive
to be considered part of the same
occupation, and the employer could not
take a tip credit for the hours spent on
those tasks. Id. This was the first time
WHD employed a proportion-of-time
analysis to the ‘‘dual jobs’’ regulation.
In 1988, WHD amended its Field
Operations Handbook (FOH) to include
section 30d00(e), regarding time spent
in duties related to a tipped occupation.
WHD FOH Revision 563 (Dec. 12, 1988).
According to the handbook entry,
§ 531.56(e) ‘‘permits the taking of the tip
credit for time spent in duties related to
the tipped occupation, even though
those duties are not by themselves
directed toward producing tips (i.e.,
maintenance and preparatory or closing
activities),’’ if those duties are
‘‘incidental’’ and ‘‘generally assigned’’
to tipped employees. To illustrate the
types of related, non-tip producing
duties for which employers could take
a tip credit, the FOH listed ‘‘a waiter/
waitress . . . who spends some time
cleaning and setting tables, making
coffee, and occasionally washing dishes
or glasses,’’ the same examples included
in § 531.56(e). But ‘‘where the facts
indicate that specific employees are
routinely assigned to maintenance, or
that tipped employees spend a
substantial amount of time performing
general preparation work or
maintenance, no tip credit may be taken
for the time spent in such duties.’’ For
the first time, the FOH noted a
‘‘substantial’’ amount of time spent
performing general preparation or
maintenance work as being in excess of
20 percent.
The FOH does not establish a binding
legal standard on the public and is not
a device for establishing interpretive
policy.7 Rather, the FOH is an
‘‘operations manual’’ that makes
available to WHD investigators and staff
policies already ‘‘established through
changes in legislations, regulations,
significant court decisions, and the
decisions and opinions of the WHD
7 Field Operations Handbook, U.S. Dep’t of Labor
(last accessed Aug. 18, 2020), available at https://
www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/field-operationshandbook.
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Administrator.’’ Id.; see also WHD
Opinion Letter FLSA2020–12 (Aug. 31,
2020); Probert v. Family Centered Servs.
of Alaska, Inc., 651 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th
Cir. 2011). But, by furnishing these
instructions to WHD investigators and
staff in the field, the FOH in practice
prohibited an employer from claiming a
tip credit for ‘‘related-duties’’ time if
that time exceeded 20 percent of the
employee’s workweek. The handbook
entry stated no rationale for a hard
percentage cap in general or the 20
percent figure in particular, and the
Department did not issue any guidance
rationalizing a hard cap. The standard
in the FOH became known as the ‘‘80/
20 rule,’’ even though it was not
promulgated as a regulation.
In 2009, WHD issued an opinion letter
expressly rescinding the 80/20 approach
prescribed in the FOH, concluding that
20 years of experience had shown it to
be confusing and unworkable. WHD
Opinion Letter FLSA2009–23 (Jan. 16,
2009). WHD explained that, consistent
with the text of the FLSA and its
regulations, so long as the duties
performed by the employees are part of
their tipped occupation, those
employees are not engaged in ‘‘dual
jobs.’’ Thus, the Department would
interpret the dual jobs regulation such
that ‘‘no limitation shall be placed on
the amount of these [related] duties that
may be performed, whether or not they
involve direct customer service, as long
as they are performed
contemporaneously with the duties
involving direct service to customers or
for a reasonable time immediately
before or after performing such directservice duties.’’ Id. Following a change
in the administration, however, in 2009
WHD withdrew that opinion letter ‘‘for
further consideration’’ and stated it
would ‘‘provide a further response in
the near future.’’
In 2012, WHD revised FOH 30d00(e),
replacing it with language currently
located at section 30d00(f). The prior
1988 language had stated that tipped
employees could spend up to 20 percent
of their working time engaged in
‘‘maintenance and preparatory or
closing activities’’ such as cleaning and
setting tables, making coffee, and
occasionally washing dishes or glasses.’’
The 2012 revision, on the other hand,
stated categorically that ‘‘maintenance
work,’’ such as ‘‘cleaning bathrooms and
washing windows,’’ is not related to the
occupation of a server. Rather, ‘‘such
jobs are non-tipped occupations’’
subject to the full minimum wage,
regardless of the time spent. As with the
1988 entry, this language was not
promulgated as a rule and was not
supported by guidance from WHD or the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
Department. As the Department
explained in the 2019 NPRM, this dual
jobs policy set forth in the FOH has
proven difficult to enforce and resulted
in widespread compliance issues; it has
also generated extensive, costly
litigation. See 84 FR 53972.
Due in large part to those concerns,
the Department in November 2018
reinstated the January 16, 2009, opinion
letter and later released an
accompanying FAB. See WHD Opinion
Letter FLSA 2018–27; see also FAB No.
2019–2 (Feb. 15, 2019). In these
documents, the Department explained
that it would no longer prohibit an
employer from taking a tip credit for the
time an employee performed related,
non-tipped duties as long as those
duties were performed
contemporaneously with, or for a
reasonable time immediately before or
after, tipped duties. See id. The
Department also explained that, in
addition to the examples listed in
§ 531.56(e), it would use the
Occupational Information Network
(O*NET), a comprehensive database of
worker attributes and job characteristics,
to determine whether a tipped
employee’s non-tipped duties were
related to his or her tipped occupation.
The 2019 NPRM proposed to revise
§ 531.56(e) to reflect this 2018 guidance.
E. The Department’s Proposal
On October 8, 2019, the Department
issued a new NPRM, proposing to
amend its tip regulations under the
FLSA to address the CAA’s amendments
to the statute and to codify policy on
how the tip credit applies to employees
who perform both tipped and nontipped duties. The Department proposed
to incorporate the new statutory
prohibition against keeping employee
tips—section 3(m)(2)(B), which applies
whether or not the employer takes a tip
credit—into its existing regulations and
to enact new recordkeeping
requirements to assist it in
administering the new language. The
Department proposed, consistent with
the CAA’s depriving of further force or
effect those portions of the Department’s
2011 regulations that restricted tip
pooling by employers that do not take
a tip credit, to remove the portions of its
regulations that prohibited those
employers from including in mandatory
tip-pooling arrangements those
employees who do not customarily and
regularly receive tips. Since the CAA
merely renumbered the FLSA’s existing
tip credit language, now section
3(m)(2)(A), the Department did not
propose revising the existing tip
retention, tip pooling, and notice
regulations.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
86761
The Department proposed to
incorporate into its CMP regulations the
new statutory language giving it
authority to seek CMPs for violations of
section 3(m)(2)(B). To harmonize the
regulations with Supreme Court
authority and the manner in which the
Department actually litigates
willfulness, it also proposed to revise
portions of its CMP regulations
(specifically, 29 CFR 578.3 and 579.2)
that address how the Department
determines whether an FLSA violation
is willful. Additionally, the Department
proposed to amend its tip regulations to
reflect recent guidance stating that an
employer may take a tip credit for time
that an employee in a tipped occupation
performs related, non-tipped duties
contemporaneously with or for a
reasonable time immediately before or
after performing the tipped duties.
Finally, the Department proposed to
amend its regulations that address the
payment of tipped employees under
Executive Order 13658 (Establishing a
Minimum Wage for Contractors) to
reflect the rescissions proposed in the
FLSA regulations for tipped employees,
to incorporate the Department’s
guidance on when an employee
performing non-tipped work is a tipped
employee and to otherwise align those
regulations with the Executive order.
The Department received 466 timely
comments on the NPRM during the 64day comment period that ended on
December 11, 2019.8 The comments
were from a broad array of
constituencies, including small business
owners, restaurant companies, employer
and industry associations, worker
advocacy groups, trade unions, nonprofit organizations, social scientists,
law firms, Members of Congress, state
attorneys general, a state department of
labor, and other interested members of
the public. All timely received
comments may be viewed on the
regulations.gov website, docket ID
WHD–2019–0004. Some of the
comments the Department received
were general statements of support or
opposition, and the Department also
received approximately 340 identical or
nearly identical ‘‘campaign’’ comments
sent in response to an organized
initiative. Commenters expressed a wide
variety of views on the merits of
particular aspects of the Department’s
proposal; however, most commenters
favored some, if not all, of the changes
proposed in the NPRM. Some
commenters, including numerous
8 The Department extended the end of the
comment period from December 9 to December 11,
2019, due to an outage that temporarily caused most
web browsers to refuse access to Regulations.gov.
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
86762
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
worker advocacy groups that submitted
comments with substantially similar
language, requested that the Department
reject proposed revisions to its
regulations that reflected recent
guidance addressing the extent to which
an employer can take a tip credit for the
time a tipped employee spends
performing related, non-tipped duties.
The Department has considered the
timely submitted comments addressing
the proposed changes.
The Department also received a small
number of comments that are beyond
the scope of this rulemaking. These
include, for example, requests that the
Department reconsider its regulation on
compulsory service charges, § 531.55,
and a request that the Department
reconsider the notice requirements in
§ 531.59. The Department does not
address those issues in this final rule.
Significant issues raised in the
comments are discussed below, along
with the Department’s responses to
those comments.
III. Final Regulatory Revisions
The Department finalizes its
proposals to amend its tip regulations to
implement the CAA amendments and
address other issues. The sections below
address these regulatory revisions as
adopted in the final rule.
The sections of this rule are separate
and severable and operate
independently from one another. If any
section is held to be invalid or
unenforceable by its terms, or as applied
to any person or circumstance, or stayed
pending further agency action, the
Department intends that the remaining
sections continue in effect.
A. General Restrictions on an
Employer’s Use of Its Employees’ Tips—
Section 531.52
i. An Employer May Not Keep Tips,
Regardless of Whether It Takes a Tip
Credit
Section 3(m)(2)(B) of the FLSA
prohibits an employer from ‘‘keeping’’
tips received by its employees ‘‘for any
purposes.’’ The prohibition on
employers keeping tips applies
regardless of whether the employer
takes a tip credit. The Department
proposed to amend § 531.52 to include
the new statutory language prohibiting
an employer from keeping employees’
tips and to clarify the extent to which
an employer may exert control over
employees’ tips without ‘‘keep[ing]’’
them in violation of 3(m)(2)(B). The
Department proposed that an employer
may exert control over tips only to (1)
promptly distribute tips to the employee
or employees who received them; (2)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
require employees to share tips with
other eligible employees; or (3) where
the employer facilitates tip pooling by
collecting and redistributing employees’
tips, promptly distribute tips to eligible
employees in a tip pool. In these
circumstances, the Department
explained, employees, not the employer,
‘‘keep’’ the tips.
Commenters—representing both
employers and employees—supported
the Department’s proposal to implement
section 3(m)(2)(B)’s prohibition on
employers’ keeping tips. See, e.g.,
Center for Workplace Compliance;
National Employment Lawyers
Association (NELA); National
Restaurant Association; Oxfam. The
Center for Workplace Compliance, for
example, commented that the proposal
aligns with the language of the
amendment. The Department agrees,
and adopts the changes to § 531.52 as
proposed.
In addition to comments on the
Department’s proposal, several
commenters requested that the
Department address whether, under the
new section 3(m)(2)(B), employers may
deduct a portion of the transactional fee
charged by the credit card company
from employees’ credit card tips.
Historically, the Department has
consistently taken the position that,
when a tip is charged to a credit card,
an employer may reduce the amount of
tips paid to the employee by the
percentage charged by the credit card
company as a transactional fee. For
example, where a credit card company
charges an employer 3 percent on all
sales charged to its credit service, the
employer may pay the employee 97
percent of the charged tips without
violating FLSA. The Department has
long permitted employers to do so,
finding this consistent with the
statutory requirement that employees
retain their tips. See WHD Opinion
Letter FLSA–214 (Mar. 28, 1977); WHD
Opinion Letter FLSA 2006–1 (Jan. 13,
2006); 29 U.S.C. 203(m)(1) (1974); 32 FR
13580 (adopting 29 CFR 531.52 (1967)).
The NPRM did not specifically address
this issue; however, as the Department
explained shortly after Congress passed
the CAA amendments, the Department
has continued to apply its previous
guidance concerning tips charged on
credit cards. See FAB No. 2018–3 (Apr.
6, 2018). In response to the NPRM, some
commenters urged the Department to
clarify that employers cannot reduce the
amount of tips by the amount of credit
card transactional fees. These
commenters stated that it is the
employer’s choice to incur the costs
associated with taking credit cards, and
section 3(m)(2)(B) should be interpreted
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
to prohibit them from using a portion of
employee tips to subsidize those costs.
See NELP, NWLC, and the Pennsylvania
Department of Labor and Industry. In
contrast, another commenter requested
that the Department affirm that an
employer may continue to deduct those
fees under whatever final rule is
implemented based on the NPRM. See
Littler Mendelson. The commenter
noted the Department’s longstanding
position allowing employers to do this
and that courts have allowed the
practice. See, e.g., Myers v. Copper
Cellar, 192 F.3d 546, 554 (6th Cir. 1999)
(employer may deduct the cost of
‘‘converting the credited tip to cash’’).
After considering these comments, the
Department affirms its longstanding
guidance authorizing employers to
deduct the actual cost of credit card
processing charges from employees’
tips. By deducting transactional fees, the
employer exerts only the amount of
control necessary to liquidate the tips to
cash and distribute them to employees.
This is consistent with the Department’s
proposal, adopted in this final rule, that
an employer may exert control over
employees’ tips without ‘‘keep[ing]’’
them in violation of 3(m)(2)(B) only to
distribute them to employees or to
facilitate tip pooling. Credit-card
processing fees are not an imposition by
the employer on the employee; they are
the price of converting credit obligations
to cash. The same fees would be
imposed upon servers themselves if
they collected their tips through credit
payments separate from the customer’s
payment to the establishment. The
Department reiterates that an employer
may not deduct more than the actual
transactional fee charged by the credit
card company attributable to liquidating
the credit card tip, nor may the
employer reduce the amount of tips
paid to the employee to cover other
costs incurred by the employer related
to credit card use, such as the cost of
installing a Point of Sale system. See
WHD Opinion Letter FLSA2006–1 (Jan.
13, 2006). An employer that uses tips to
cover those operating expenses would
violate section 3(m)(2)(B).
ii. Managers and Supervisors May Not
Keep Tips
a. Summary of the Final Rule
Section 3(m)(2)(B) prohibits
employers, regardless of whether they
take a tip credit, from keeping tips,
‘‘including allowing managers or
supervisors to keep any portion of
employees’ tips.’’ 29 U.S.C.
203(m)(2)(B). The prohibition applies to
managers or supervisors obtaining
employees’ tips directly or indirectly,
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
such as via a tip pool. To clarify which
employees qualify as managers or
supervisors for purposes of section
3(m)(2)(B), the 2019 NPRM proposed
§ 531.52(b)(2), which would codify the
Department’s current enforcement
policy under FAB No. 2018–3 (Apr. 6,
2018).
The Department is finalizing the
language as proposed. Specifically, the
final rule uses the duties test, but not
the salary tests, from the FLSA’s
executive employee exemption to
determine which individuals are
managers or supervisors who may not
keep tips under section 3(m)(2)(B).9 As
the 2019 NPRM explained, this
exclusion ensures that the terms
‘‘manager’’ and ‘‘supervisor’’ encompass
more individuals than the term
‘‘executive’’ as used in section 13(a)(1)
of the FLSA.
In effect, the final rule defines a
manager or supervisor for purposes of
section 3(m)(2)(B) as any employee (1)
whose primary duty is managing the
enterprise or a customarily recognized
department or subdivision of the
enterprise; (2) who customarily and
regularly directs the work of at least two
or more other full-time employees or
their equivalent; and (3) who has the
authority to hire or fire other employees,
or whose suggestions and
recommendations as to the hiring or
firing are given particular weight. The
definition also includes as managers or
supervisors any individuals who own at
least a bona fide 20 percent equity
interest in the enterprise in which they
are employed and who are actively
engaged in its management.
The final rule also revises § 531.52 to
state that FLSA section 3(m)(2)(B)
‘‘prohibits employers from requiring
employees to share tips with managers
and supervisors,’’ and revises § 531.54
to state that employers who do not take
a tip credit ‘‘may not include
supervisors and managers’’ in a tip pool.
b. Comments Regarding the Definition
of Managers and Supervisors
The Department received several
comments addressing the issue of who
should be included as managers or
supervisors under section 3(m)(2)(B).
The majority of commenters expressed
general support for the proposal and one
commenter noted that the proposed
approach would be familiar and
therefore less likely to have unintended
consequences. Many commenters
9 An employee is an executive exempt from the
FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime requirements
if the employee performs certain duties, is paid on
a salary basis, and is paid a minimum salary level.
29 U.S.C. 213(a)(1), 29 CFR 541.100(a)(2)–(4).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
recommended modifications to the
Department’s proposal.
The Pennsylvania Department of
Labor & Industry supported using the
executive exemption duties test, but
recommended that every employee who
satisfies any of the three elements of the
duties test be deemed a ‘‘manager’’ or
‘‘supervisor’’ under section 3(m)(2)(B).
For example, an employee who
customarily and regularly directs the
work of two or more other employees,
but does not have the authority to hire
or fire other employees, would be
counted as a ‘‘manager’’ or ‘‘supervisor’’
under this definition, and prohibited
from sharing employee’s tips.
Other commenters, including Littler
Mendelson and Fisher Phillips,
recommended that the Department
adopt the entire executive exemption,
including the salary basis and salary
level tests, rather than incorporating
only the duties test. Littler asserted that
this would state ‘‘an easy, bright-line
rule’’ and would save ‘‘time and effort
necessary to determine whether lowerpaid employees qualify for the
exemption.’’
Other commenters, including the
National Employment Law Project
(NELP), Restaurant Opportunities
Center United (ROC), and A Better
Balance recommended incorporating a
salary level into the definition, such as
the median wage for supervisors of food
preparation and serving workers based
on the National Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics’
Occupational Employment Statistics
(OES). They proposed in the alternative
that the definition include the executive
exemption’s salary level test, 29 CFR
541.100(a)(1), but allow an hourly
equivalent. This, they urged, would
allow more low-level managerial
employees to participate in tip pools.
Finally, Senator Patty Murray and
Representative Rosa DeLauro stated that
the executive exemption duties test ‘‘is
not appropriate for accurately
identifying all employees who are
managers and supervisors.’’ Senator
Murray and Representative DeLauro
asserted that the Department’s proposal
allows employees who engage in some
managerial work to participate in tip
pools, while section 3(m)(2)(B) prohibits
that group from keeping employees’
tips. They instead recommended
importing the definition of ‘‘supervisor’’
from section 2(11) of the National Labor
Relations Act or using ‘‘as a starting
point’’ the definition of ‘‘management’’
from 29 CFR 541.102.
After considering all comments, the
Department finalizes this portion of
§ 531.52 as proposed. Using the duties
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
86763
test disjunctively or using the definition
of ‘‘management’’ set forth in 29 CFR
541.102 would prevent employees who
perform some lower-level managerial
responsibilities from participating in tip
pools, even if they are not bona fide
managers or supervisors of the
employer. On the other hand, adopting
the full executive exemption test
(including the salary basis and salary
threshold tests) would, as Senator
Murray and Representative DeLauro
noted, conflict with Congress’s use of
the terms ‘‘managers’’ and
‘‘supervisors’’—terms not used
elsewhere in the FLSA—rather than
‘‘executives’’ or a reference to section
13(a)(1). This counsels against fully
adopting the test used for the executive
exemption.
Relatedly, Senator Murray and
Representative DeLauro asserted that
the Department’s proposed definition of
‘‘managers’’ and ‘‘supervisors’’ as used
in section 3(m)(2)(B) violates Congress’s
intent because that section does not
refer to the executive exemption.
However, the section 13(a)(1) executive
exemption requires each of the three
tests—salary basis, salary threshold, and
duties—to be met. The proposed
definition of ‘‘manager’’ and
‘‘supervisor’’ uses just one of those
criteria—the duties test. As the NPRM
noted, this definition therefore
encompasses a different, broader group
of employees than the term ‘‘executive’’
as used in section 13(a)(1).
As for other commenters’ suggestion
to establish two different salary levels,
one for the executive exemption and
one for managers and supervisors
excluded from tip pools, the Department
concludes that this would likely cause
undue confusion in the regulated
community. Additionally, setting a
separate compensation level, as
suggested by some commenters, could
require periodic updates to § 531.52 to
reflect inflation. Finally, there is no
basis for applying a salary level based
on the restaurant industry to tipped
employees in all industries. For
instance, the Department has not
studied or received comments on an
appropriate salary level at which to
exclude managers and supervisors from
tip pools in the cosmetology, casino, or
cleaning-service industries and
therefore cannot reasonably predict the
effects imposing such a requirement
would have in those industries. The
Department therefore declines to adopt
these proposals and finalizes this
portion of § 531.52 as proposed.
In sum, the Department concludes
that the criteria in § 531.52 effectively
identify the managers and supervisors
whom Congress sought to prevent from
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
86764
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
keeping other employees’ tips. The
Department believes that employers can
readily use these criteria to determine
whether an employee is a manager or
supervisor because employers are
generally familiar with the longstanding
regulations from which those criteria are
drawn.
c. Comments Regarding Managerial
Participation in Tip Pools
The Department also received several
comments supporting the language in
§ 531.52 prohibiting employers ‘‘from
requiring employees to share tips with
managers and supervisors’’ and the
language in § 531.54 specifying that
employers that do not take a section
3(m)(2)(A) tip credit ‘‘may not include
supervisors and managers’’ in a tip pool.
Some commenters raised concerns,
however, that the Department’s
proposed regulations neither expressly
prohibit nor expressly allow managers
or supervisors to retain tips they receive
directly from customers. For example,
the National Restaurant Association and
the Bowling Proprietors’ Association of
America suggested that the regulations
clarify that the law does not prohibit
supervisors or managers from retaining
tips they themselves receive directly
from customers. These commenters also
requested that the Department allow
managers or supervisors who receive
tips directly from customers to share or
pool tips with other managers or other
nontipped employees. The National
Restaurant Association proposed that
the prohibition against managers and
supervisors participating in a tip pool
‘‘extend only to those individuals
receiving money from the pool or share,
but not to individuals who only
contribute money into the pool or
share.’’
The Department agrees that section
3(m)(2)(B) permits a manager or
supervisor to keep a tip that he or she
receives directly from a customer for the
service only he or she provides. The
statute states only that an ‘‘employer
may not keep tips received by its
employees for any purposes, including
allowing managers or supervisors to
keep any portion of employees’ tips’’
and is implicitly stating that managers
and supervisors may not keep tips
received by employees other than
themselves. A salon manager, for
example, may keep tips left by
customers whose hair she personally
styles. In response to commenters’
suggestions, the Department added
language in finalized § 531.52(b)(2) to
make this clear: ‘‘A manager or
supervisor may keep tips that he or she
receives directly from customers based
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
on the service that he or she directly
provides.’’
With regard to tip pools, the
Department notes that the requirements
of § 531.54 only apply to those tip pools
mandated by employers. When a
manager or supervisor who receives tips
directly from customers wishes to
voluntarily ‘‘tip out’’ a portion of his or
her tips to other employees, that is not
considered to be participation in a tip
pool and is not prohibited by the FLSA
or the proposed regulations. Voluntarily
‘‘tipping out’’ is different from an
employer-mandated tip pool. The
Department believes that allowing
managers and supervisors to participate
in tip pools for one purpose
(contributing tips) and not for another
(receiving tips) would create confusion
among employers and employees.
Furthermore, such a proposal could lead
to situations where it is difficult for
employers to demonstrate compliance
with the prohibition on employees
sharing tips with managers and
supervisors. Therefore, the Department
declines to make such changes in the
final rule.
Finally, upon review, the Department
realizes that it may have unintentionally
created confusion by not including
language expressly forbidding manager
and supervisor participation in tip pools
in proposed § 531.54(c), which applies
to employers that take a section 3(m)(2)
tip credit. As the statutory text and
proposed § 531.52(b) make clear, no
employer may require employees to
share tips with managers and
supervisors—there is no distinction
between employers who do or do not
take a tip credit. Therefore, the
Department will add a new
§ 531.54(c)(3) that mirrors the language
in proposed § 531.54(d): ‘‘An employer
may not participate in such a tip pool
and may not include managers and
supervisors in the pool.’’ The
Department otherwise finalizes as
proposed the language in §§ 531.52(b)
and 531.54(d).
B. Tip Pooling—Section 531.54
The Department proposed to amend
§ 531.54, which generally addresses tip
pooling, to reflect the CAA
amendments. The Department proposed
to incorporate section 3(m)(2)(B)’s
prohibition on employers keeping tips,
which applies regardless of whether the
employer takes a tip credit, into
§ 531.54. The Department also proposed
to amend § 531.54 to include the
specific requirements that apply to
employers that establish mandatory tip
pools, depending on whether the
employer does or does not take a tip
credit, and depending on whether the
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
mandatory tip pool is a traditional pool
limited to customarily and regularly
tipped employees or a nontraditional tip
pool, which may include employees
who do not customarily and regularly
receive tips.
i. Requirements When an Employer
Collects and Redistributes Tips—
Section 531.54(b)
In its proposed rule, the Department
took the position that section 3(m)(2)(B)
does not prohibit an employer from
collecting tips received by employees to
facilitate a mandatory tip pool if the
employer fully redistributes the tips it
collects no less often than when it pays
wages. In those circumstances, the
employees’ tips are only temporarily
within the employer’s possession, and
the employer does not ‘‘keep’’ the tips
within the meaning of section
3(m)(2)(B). However, the Department
proposed that employers ‘‘keep’’ tips in
violation of section 3(m)(2)(B) when
they collect tips but do not redistribute
them within this time period.
As proposed, § 531.54(b)(1) covered
employers that collect tips to administer
a tip pool and required those employers
to fully distribute any collected tips at
the regular payday for the workweek, or,
for pay periods of more than one
workweek, at the regular payday for the
period in which the particular
workweek ends. Proposed § 531.54(b)
also required that, to the extent an
employer could not ascertain the
amount of tips received or how tips
should be distributed before processing
payroll, those tips be distributed to
employees as soon as practicable after
the regular payday. As the Department
observed in the 2019 NPRM, these
requirements align with current
guidance on how soon an employer
must distribute to tipped employees tips
that were charged on credit cards. See
WHD Opinion Letter FLSA2006–1 (Jan.
13, 2006). Because proposed
§ 531.54(b)(1) defined ‘‘keep’’ within the
confines of section 3(m)(2)(B), the
requirement that an employer fully and
promptly distribute any tips it collects
would have applied regardless of
whether the employer took a tip credit
and regardless of the type of tip pool the
employer administered.
The Pennsylvania Department of
Labor and Industry expressed support
for proposed § 531.54(b)(1). Restaurant
owners who submitted comments as
part of a comment campaign also
expressed general support for ‘‘the
proposed changes regarding tip
pooling,’’ noting that they ‘‘closely track
the new statutory language.’’
Accordingly, the Department adopts
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
§ 531.54(b)(1) as proposed, but separates
it into two paragraphs, (b)(1) and (2).
ii. Additional Requirements for
Mandatory Tip Pools When an
Employer Takes a Tip Credit—Section
531.54(c)
Proposed § 531.54(c) sets forth the tip
pooling requirements for employers that
take a tip credit. As explained in the
2019 NPRM, the Department’s approach
to those employers remains unchanged
because the CAA did not amend the
substance of what is now section
3(m)(2)(A), which applies to those
employers. Accordingly, proposed
§ 531.54(c) would retain the
Department’s existing requirements in
§ 531.54 but would clarify that these
requirements apply only to employers
that take a tip credit. Those existing
requirements state that those employers
that take a tip credit can require tipped
employees to contribute tips to a tip
pool only if the pool’s membership is
limited to employees who customarily
and regularly receive tips.
Proposed § 531.54(c)’s requirements
are drawn directly from section
3(m)(2)(A) of the FLSA—formerly
numbered section 3(m)—which has
imposed the same tip pooling, notice,
and tip retention requirements on
employers that take a tip credit since
1974. The Department thus adopts
§ 531.54(c) as proposed.
iii. Nontraditional Tip Pools When an
Employer Does Not Take a Tip Credit—
Sections 531.52, 531.54, and 531.59
In 2011, the Department revised its tip
regulations to require that tipped
employees retain the tips that they
receive, except those distributed
through a tip pool comprising solely
employees who customarily and
regularly receive tips. The Department
applied this interpretation to all
employers of tipped employees,
regardless of whether they took a tip
credit. See 29 CFR 531.52, 531.54, and
531.59 (2011).
Through the CAA, Congress
suspended portions of §§ 531.52,
531.54, and 531.59 that restricted
employers that do not take a tip credit
from instituting nontraditional tip
pools. See CAA, Div. S, Tit. XII, sec.
1201(c). As a result, since the CAA’s
effective date, employers that do not
claim a tip credit have been permitted
to implement mandatory nontraditional
tip pools that include both tipped and
nontipped employees. See FAB No.
2018–3 (Apr. 6. 2018).
Consistent with these amendments,
the Department proposed to revise its
regulations to remove certain
restrictions on employers that do not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
claim a tip credit (and therefore pay
workers a direct cash wage of at least
the minimum wage), including those
prohibiting them from instituting
mandatory nontraditional tip pools.
These restrictions were based on what is
now section 3(m)(2)(A) of the FLSA,
which the Department previously
concluded neither limits employers that
do not take a tip credit nor grants
authority to the Department to do so.
See Resps.’ Br. at 13, Nat’l Rest. Ass’n
v. Dept. of Labor, No. 16–920 (U.S.),
cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 2697 (2018); see
also 82 FR 57399. In particular, the
Department proposed to rescind the
congressionally-suspended language in
§ 531.52 that bars employers from
establishing mandatory nontraditional
tip pools, ‘‘whether or not it takes a tip
credit,’’ and to make additional
clarifying edits; to revise § 531.54 to
clarify that the restrictions and notice
requirements for tip pools apply only to
employers that take a tip credit; and to
revise § 531.59 to state that the bar on
mandatory nontraditional tip pools
applies only to employers that take a tip
credit. See 84 FR 53976–77. The
Department also proposed to make
explicit in § 531.54 that an employer
that pays its tipped employees the full
minimum wage and does not take a tip
credit may impose a mandatory tip
pooling arrangement that includes
dishwashers, cooks, or other employees
who are not employed in an occupation
in which employees customarily and
regularly receive tips, as long as that
arrangement does not include any
employer, supervisor, or manager. See
84 FR 53976.
A number of commenters addressed
the Department’s proposal to allow
employers that do not take a tip credit
to mandate nontraditional tip pools.
Commenters including the NFIB,
Bloomin’ Brands, Littler, and several
individuals, supported the proposal,
noting that it reflects the realities of
tipped workplaces and is fairer to
nontipped employees. As Bloomin’
Brands stated, ‘‘it takes an entire team,’’
including employees in occupations
that do not customarily and regularly
receive tips, to give customers ‘‘the total
quality experience necessary to earn a
tip.’’ Littler stated that nontraditional
tip pools are especially helpful where
state law precludes employers from
taking a tip credit, and tipped
employees who continue to earn tips on
top of their wages would otherwise
‘‘earn far more than their nontipped
coworkers.’’
In contrast, Texas RioGrande Legal
Aid and some individual commenters
opposed allowing employers that do not
take a tip credit to institute mandatory
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
86765
nontraditional tip pools, arguing that
this arrangement is contrary to what
customers intend when they leave a tip
and unfair to tipped employees. At least
one of these commenters, however,
appears to have misunderstood that the
Department’s proposal requires an
employer to pay a tipped employee the
full Federal minimum wage before the
employer can require the employee to
participate in a mandatory tip pool or
other similar arrangement that includes
one or more nontipped employees.
Texas RioGrande Legal Aid also
opposed the removal of language in
§ 531.52 stating that the customer ‘‘has
the right to determine who shall be the
recipient’’ of a tip.
Other commenters, including those
who did not oppose mandatory
nontraditional tip pools as a general
matter, expressed concern that an
employer that institutes a mandatory
nontraditional tip pool could
conceivably reduce the cash wages it
pays to nontipped employees, such as
cooks and dishwashers, who receive
tips from the pool. See, e.g., ROC, NELP,
and Policy Integrity. The Department
had acknowledged this possibility in the
economic analysis accompanying the
NPRM. See 84 FR 53968. NELP and
other commenters asked the Department
to prohibit employers from taking
advantage of nontraditional tip pools to
pay lower cash wages to nontipped
employees, asserting that those actions
would be inconsistent with 3(m)(2)(B)’s
prohibition on employers’ keeping tips.
Policy Integrity acknowledged,
however, that it would be ‘‘difficult to
design a rule’’ to accomplish this end.
Finally, Senator Murray and
Representative DeLauro recommended
that the Department require employers
to institute a ‘‘democratic process’’ to
obtain the consent of tipped employees
before instituting nontraditional tip
pools. They asserted that such a
safeguard would ensure that employers
are not keeping employees’ tips.
After considering the comments, the
Department adopts without
modification the changes it proposed to
§§ 531.52, 531.54, and 531.59, which
allow employers that do not take a tip
credit to implement mandatory
nontraditional tip pools, as long as those
tip pools do not include employers,
managers, or supervisors. These changes
are consistent with the 2018
amendments to the FLSA and the text
of section 3(m)(2) as a whole. Section
3(m)(2)(A) expressly prohibits
employers that take a tip credit from
including employees that do not
customarily and regularly receive tips in
mandatory tip pools together with
employees that do, but it does not place
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
86766
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
this prohibition on employers that do
not take a tip credit. In addition, as
commenters noted, the revised
regulations will afford employers
flexibility to reward nontipped
employees who contribute to the
customers’ experience and incentivize
tipped and nontipped employees alike
to improve that experience.10 As
finalized, §§ 531.52, 531.54, and 531.59
expressly allow employers that do not
claim a tip credit to implement a
mandatory tip pool that includes both
employees who receive tips and
employees who do not ’’customarily and
regularly’’ receive tips. However, that
tip pool may not include any employer,
manager, or supervisor.
The Department declines to require
that employers institute a process to
obtain consent from tipped employees
before including them in a mandatory
nontraditional tip pool. Nothing in
section 3(m)(2) predicates the
imposition of a tip pool on employee
consent, and there is no textual basis for
creating such a requirement with
respect to only a nontraditional tip pool.
Not only is there no textual basis for
such a requirement, a bill introduced to
impose such a requirement was neither
passed, nor its substance incorporated
into the CAA. See H.R. 5180, 115th
Cong. (2d Sess. 2018). Additionally, this
recommendation is outside of the
proposed changes, and the public has
not had the opportunity to comment on
its merits or feasibility.
The Department also declines to
modify its proposal in response to
commenters’ concern that an employer
could reduce the cash wages paid to a
nontipped employee who participates in
a nontraditional tip pool. What matters
is not nontipped employees’ cash
wages, but rather their overall
compensation, which includes both
cash wages and tips that they may now
receive under this final rule. Employers
can already reduce nontipped
employees’ overall compensation by
lowering cash wages, but this requires
tradeoffs: Morale and productivity
would fall, and it would become more
difficult to recruit and retain qualified
workers. Allowing nontraditional tip
pools does not alter these tradeoffs and
thus would not make employers more
able or willing to reduce nontipped
employees’ overall compensation. While
10 Given this flexibility afforded to employers to
reward nontipped employees, the Department need
not resolve disagreement between commenters as to
whether customers tip based only on the specific
performance of one or more tipped employees or,
instead, on an assessment of the customer’s broader
experience. The intention(s) behind individual
customers’ tipping likely varies depending on
context, customer, and circumstances.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
employers that share tips with
nontipped employees under this rule
could reduce cash wages paid to those
same employees, economic reality
makes it unlikely that they would do so
in a way that reduces overall
compensation unless the employer was
already able and willing to reduce the
employees’ overall compensation for
reasons unrelated to this rule.
On the other hand, the nontraditional
tip pools allowed under this rule give
employers a new way to increase
nontipped employees’ overall
compensation and thereby improve
morale, productivity, recruitment, and
retention. Some employers will do so by
keeping nontipped employees’ cash
wages the same while allowing them to
share in tips. Others may reduce cash
wages but share tips that, on average,
more than offset the reduction in cash
wages so that the net effect on overall
compensation will be positive.
Regardless of the approach, a nontipped
employee’s overall compensation will
increase.
Additionally, it would be difficult, if
not impossible, to develop and enforce
a prohibition on employers’ adjusting a
nontipped employee’s cash wage when
the employer complies with the FLSA’s
minimum wage and overtime
requirements. Given the fungible nature
of money and the innumerable lawful
reasons why an employer might set,
raise, reduce, or maintain an employee’s
compensation, it would be difficult to
distinguish between lawful reductions
to compensation and unlawful
‘‘keeping’’ of ‘‘tips received by its
employees.’’ And although
nontraditional tip pooling arrangements
may affect pay decisions for nontipped
workers who participate in a
nontraditional pool—including by
allowing employers to pay a lower cash
wage to retain or hire an employee in
the non-tipped position—the
Department disagrees with commenters’
claims that any benefit an employer
receives from a mandatory tip pool
constitutes ‘‘keeping’’ tips in violation
of 3(m)(2)(B). Indeed, for decades in
what is currently section 3(m)(2)(A),
Congress has expressly authorized
mandatory traditional tip pools that
afford employers similar indirect
benefits. Congress also implicitly
authorized these nontraditional tip
pools when it suspended the
Department’s regulations prohibiting
them, undercutting any claim that such
tip pools were actually prohibited by
the CAA.
Ultimately, the Department believes
that employers will rarely reduce the
cash wages of nontipped employees
who participate in a nontraditional tip
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
pool. Economic realities limit
employers’ practical ability to reduce
compensation significantly and
simultaneously retain employees.
Further, employers are constrained by
wage and hour laws. Because back-ofthe-house and other employees who
receive tips through a nontraditional tip
pool are not employed in an occupation
in which they customarily and regularly
receive tips, an employer may not take
a tip credit for these workers, and must
pay them at least the full Federal
minimum wage. See 29 U.S.C.
203(m)(2), 206(a); see also S. Rep. No.
93–690, at 43 (1974); WHD Opinion
Letter FLSA2008–18 (Dec. 19, 2008).
And, in many workplaces, state and
local laws require employers to pay
nontipped workers a minimum wage
that exceeds the Federal minimum
wage.
Further, though employers could
theoretically do so, an ability under the
rule to decrease nontipped employees’
wages is unlikely, by itself, to motivate
an employer to adopt a nontraditional
tip pool. An employer that currently
takes a tip credit that institutes a
nontraditional tip pool would lose the
tip credit and be required to pay tipped
workers at least the full minimum wage.
Accordingly, the wage obligations
required under a nontraditional tip pool
could result in an increased transfer
from employers to employees.
Finally, the Department declines to
restore to § 531.52 the statement that a
customer ‘‘has the right to determine
who shall be the recipient’’ of a tip. This
language is confusing in the context of
section 3(m)(2) and the Department’s tip
regulations, which expressly permit
employers to require employees to pool
tips with each other regardless of which
employee or employees the customer
intended to receive the tip.
For these reasons, the Department
finalizes the relevant changes to
§§ 531.52, 531.54, and 531.59 as
proposed. An employer may implement
a nontraditional tip pool that includes
tipped and nontipped employees,
provided the pool does not include any
employers, managers, or supervisors,
and so long as the employer does not
take a tip credit and pays the full
minimum wage to both the tipped
employees who contribute to the pool
and the nontipped employees who
receive tips from the pool.
C. Recordkeeping Requirements for
Employers That Have Employees Who
Receive Tips—Section 516.28
Section 516.28 imposes certain
recordkeeping requirements on only
those employers that take a tip credit.
Among other things, § 516.28(a) requires
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
that the employer identify each
employee for whom the employer takes
a tip credit (see § 516.28(a)(1)) and
maintain records regarding the weekly
or monthly amount of tips received, as
reported by the employee to the
employer (see § 516.28(a)(2)). The
employer may use information on IRS
Form 4070 (Employee’s Report of Tips
to Employer) to satisfy the requirements
under § 516.28(a)(2).11
The Department proposed revisions to
the recordkeeping requirements in
§ 516.28 to improve consistent and
effective administration of section
3(m)(2)(B). The revisions would require
similar recordkeeping requirements for
employers that do not take a tip credit
but still collect employees’ tips to
operate a mandatory tip pool. Proposed
§ 516.28(b)(1) would require these
employers to identify on their payroll
records each employee who receives
tips. Proposed § 516.28(b)(2) would also
require those employers to keep records
of the weekly or monthly amount of tips
received by each employee, as reported
by the employee to the employer (this
may consist of reports from the
employees to the employer on IRS Form
4070).
The Department received only two
comments concerning the proposed
recordkeeping requirements for
employers that do not take a tip credit
but still collect employees’ tips to
operate a mandatory tip pool. One
commenter recommended that the
Department require additional
recordkeeping beyond the proposed
requirements, while the other argued
that the proposed recordkeeping was
not required. The proposed
recordkeeping requirements would help
the Department determine whether
employers are complying with their tip
pooling obligations. Accordingly, the
Department adopts the addition of
§§ 516.29(b)(1) and 516.28(b)(2) as
proposed.
D. Dual Jobs—Section 531.56(e)
i. Summary of the Final Rule
Section 531.56(e) addresses instances
in which an employer employs an
employee in both a tipped occupation,
for which the employer may take a tip
credit, and a non-tipped occupation, for
which the employer may not take a tip
credit. The Department proposed to
amend § 531.56(e) to codify its recent
subregulatory guidance regarding when
an employer can take a tip credit for
hours that a tipped employee performs
non-tipped duties related to his or her
11 For information regarding IRS Form 4070, see
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businessesself-employed/tip-recordkeeping-and-reporting.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
tipped occupation. See WHD Opinion
Letter FLSA2018–27 (Nov. 8, 2018);
FAB No. 2019–2 (Feb. 15, 2019). Before
it was amended to reflect this recent
guidance, the FOH had stated that an
employer may not take a tip credit for
non-tipped duties related to an
employee’s tipped occupation if the
time spent on those duties exceeds 20
percent of the employee’s workweek. As
described above, stakeholders and
courts sometimes referred to this
guidance as the ‘‘80/20 rule,’’ although
it was not, in fact, a regulation.
However, as the Department observed in
the NPRM, this policy was difficult for
employers to administer and led to
confusion, in part because the guidance
did not explain how employers could
determine whether a particular nontipped duty is ‘‘related’’ to the tipproducing occupation and in part
because the monitoring surrounding the
80/20 approach on individual duties
was onerous for employers.
The final rule, which (with the
exception of two changes) adopts the
changes to § 531.56(e) as proposed and
clarifies, consistent with the
Department’s current guidance, that an
employer may take a tip credit for all
non-tipped duties an employee
performs that meet two requirements.
First, the duties must be related to the
employee’s tipped occupation; second,
the employee must perform the related
duties contemporaneously with the tipproducing activities or within a
reasonable time immediately before or
after the tipped activities. This updated
approach to the related-duties standard
is consistent with the plain text of the
FLSA, which permits employers to take
a tip credit based on whether an
employee is engaged in a tipped
‘‘occupation,’’ not on whether the
employee is performing certain kinds of
duties within the tipped occupation.
To facilitate the administration of this
approach, the final rule also
complements the examples already in
§ 531.56(e) by adopting the
Occupational Information Network
(O*NET) as a source of guidance for
determining when a tipped employee’s
non-tipped duties are related to his or
her tipped occupation. As explained in
more detail below, the final rule states
that a non-tipped duty is presumed to
be related to a tip-producing occupation
if it is listed as a task of the tipproducing occupation in O*NET. As the
Department explained in the NPRM,
O*NET is a comprehensive database of
worker attributes and job characteristics,
and is available to the public at
www.onetonline.org. O*NET includes
information on work activities for more
than 900 occupations based on the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
86767
Standard Occupational Classification
system, a statistical standard used by
Federal agencies to classify workers into
occupational categories for the purpose
of collecting, calculating, or
disseminating data.
ii. Comments Regarding the Updated
Related Duties Approach
The Department received many
comments expressing support for the
proposed changes to § 531.56(e). Those
commenters suggested that the updated
related duties approach is a substantial
improvement over the 80/20 approach
because it is more consistent with the
FLSA’s text, structure, and purpose; and
it is a more practical and administrable
approach. See, e.g., Inspire Brands; the
Center for Workplace Compliance;
Littler Mendelson.
On the first point, several commenters
observed that the Department’s proposal
aligns the tip credit regulations with the
plain language of the FLSA. For
example, Littler stated that ‘‘the FLSA
says nothing about slicing an
employee’s duties into creditable and
non-creditable categories, nor does it
say anything about capping an
employee’s related duties at 20%.’’
Instead, the statutory language ‘‘suggests
that all work within the tipped
occupation is eligible for a credit—not
just some arbitrary percentage of the
work.’’ Inspire Brands stated that the
Department’s proposal parallels other
FLSA regulations. In particular, ‘‘in the
context of the FLSA’s white collar
exemptions, the Department long ago
abandoned any notion that employees
must spend a specific amount of time
performing exempt work to qualify for
an exemption.’’ See 29 CFR 541.700(b)
(‘‘The amount of time spent performing
exempt work can be a useful guide
. . . , [but] time alone . . . is not the
sole test’’).12 Inspire Brands also stated
that the Department’s proposal best
approximates ‘‘what Congress intended
to achieve when it first amended the
FLSA to include tip credit rules.
Specifically, when Congress amended
sections 203(m) and 203(t) in 1966, it
did so to permit ‘the continuance of
existing practices with respect to tips’ in
the hotel and restaurant industries[,] S.
Rep. No. 89–1487 (1966),’’ and there
was no evidence that employers in 1966
had an ‘‘existing practice’’ of paying
servers or bartenders full minimum
wages whenever related non-tipped
duties exceeded a specific time limit.
12 The Department maintains a proportion-of-time
standard in other contexts. That standard is not
appropriate in the dual jobs context because of the
fluid nature of the work required in many tipped
occupations.
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
86768
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
On the second point, a number of
commenters observed that the
Department’s proposal is easier to
administer than the 80/20 approach.
Employers noted they will no longer
feel that they have to try to track their
employees minute by minute or task by
task. Nor will they have to wrestle with
which duties are related to their
employees’ tipped work. Instead, they
can refer to the list of tasks for that
occupation in O*NET. An employer that
does so may take a tip credit for the
employee’s entire shift (as long as any
non-tipped duties are performed
contemporaneously with or for a
reasonable time immediately before or
after tipped work). This approach
increases compliance, reduces employer
costs, and avoids litigation. See, e.g.,
Littler; Center for Workplace
Compliance; Inspire Brands; Bloomin’
Brands; cf. Pellon v. Bus. Representation
Int’l, Inc., 528 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1314
(S.D. Fla. 2007), aff’d, 291 F. App’x 310
(11th Cir. 2008) (describing the practical
difficulties of administering the contrary
80/20 approach). Inspire Brands stated
that under the proposed rule, employers
will no longer need to devote significant
time to monitoring duties performed by
tipped employees or tracking
employees’ time spent on various
specific duties, and ‘‘in the place of
such activities,’’ supervisors will be able
to spend ‘‘more time tending to
customers’’ and helping servers and
bartenders with non-tipped work, such
as cleaning tables and stocking stations.
Since a tipped employee ‘‘would have
otherwise performed such tasks,’’
Inspire Brands also stated that tipped
employees will be able to ‘‘use that time
savings to interact with customers and
generate more in tips.’’ Bloomin’ Brands
noted that the proposal remedied a
‘‘particularly unrealistic unintended
consequence’’ of the existing regulation,
which required employers to
‘‘evaluate[ ] a tipped employee’s
entitlement to the tip credit on a taskby-task basis.’’ Littler commended the
Department’s proposal for ‘‘solv[ing]
. . . in one stroke’’ the monitoring
problems associated with the 80/20
approach. The Center for Workplace
Compliance stated that by ‘‘not focusing
on the specific amount of time spent on
various tasks,’’ the proposal ‘‘will be
easier to understand and will make
compliance simpler.’’
The Department also received several
comments skeptical of or opposed to its
proposal or recommending that the
Department adopt a different approach.
The National Restaurant Association, for
example, suggested that the Department
loosen the proposed limitations on non-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
tipped work and ‘‘specify in the Final
Rule that so long as [non-tipped] work
occurs during the same shift or workday
in which the employee engages in the
main duties of a tipped occupation, the
tip credit is available for the entire shift
or workday.’’ In contrast, several
commenters, including those
representing employees, 19 State
Attorneys General, and Democratic
Members of Congress, expressed
concern that the updated related duties
approach was not sufficiently stringent
and would allow an employer to take a
tip credit even when a tipped employee
spends a substantial amount of time
performing non-tipped work. These
commenters urged the Department to
return to the 80/20 approach (or adopt
a more protective standard), and stated
that a return to the 80/20 approach
would be more workable than the
proposed approach. They also argued
that the Department has not sufficiently
explained why the new standard would
be more easily administrable than the
80/20 approach.
In addition, Senator Murray and
Representative DeLauro asserted that
the Department’s proposal violates
newly added section 3(m)(2)(B), which
prohibits employers from keeping any
portion of employees’ tips for any
purposes. They contended that to read
section 3(m)(2)(B) as permitting a tip
credit for any time an employee spends
on non-tipped duties (whether related
or unrelated) would produce an ‘‘absurd
result’’; that is, it would allow
employers to reassign non-tipped
workers’ duties to tipped workers and
use tips to fulfill their minimum wage
obligations for that work.
After considering the comments, the
Department finalizes § 531.56(e)(2) as
proposed (with the exception of one
word that was changed for consistency).
The Department disagrees that the
updated related duties test allows an
employer to take a tip credit when a
tipped employee performs a substantial
amount of non-tipped work and agrees
with other commenters that a return to
the 80/20 approach would be unwise for
several reasons.
First, the updated related duties test
does not permit employers to take a tip
credit when tipped employees are, in
fact, engaged in a non-tipped
occupation. Instead, an employer may
take a tip credit for non-tipped related
duties only when those duties are
performed ‘‘contemporaneously with or
for a reasonable time immediately
before or after’’ tipped work. As a result,
when a tipped employee engages in a
substantial amount of separate, nontipped related duties, such that he or
she has effectively ceased to be engaged
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
in a tipped occupation, the tip credit is
no longer available. Thus, an employer
could not take a tip credit for the entire
shift when a tipped employee spends
‘‘five hours, or more’’ of a 6-hour shift
doing non-tipped work, see NELA, nor
could it claim the tip credit for all hours
worked by a dishwasher who picks up
a few serving shifts per week, see
Patriotic Millionaires. In these
examples, the employee would not be
performing the non-tipped related
duties contemporaneously with or for a
reasonable time immediately before or
after performing tipped work. By
contrast, an employer of an employee
who has significant non-tipped related
duties which are inextricably
intertwined with their tipped duties
should not be forced to account for the
time that employee spends doing those
intertwined duties. Rather, such duties
are generally properly considered a part
of the employee’s tipped occupation, as
is consistent with the statute.
Second, the Department disagrees that
the proposed rule’s language is not
specific enough to furnish useful
guidance. The requirement that related
duties be performed contemporaneously
with tipped duties is not difficult to
administer in practice. For example, a
barber who cleans the combs she is
using as she is cutting a customer’s hair
is performing that duty during the same
time as—contemporaneously with—the
tip-producing work. The regulatory term
‘‘contemporaneously’’ does not
necessarily mean that the employee
must perform tipped and non-tipped
duties at the exact same moment in
time.
Moreover, the allowance for related
duties performed ‘‘for a reasonable time
immediately before or after’’ a tipped
duty creates a sufficiently intelligible
distinction between employees engaged
in tipped occupations and non-tipped
occupations. It is true that this limit
does not create as bright a line as a firm
cap on the amount of time an employee
may spend on particular duties
(although the 80/20 approach creates
significantly greater uncertainty in other
ways as discussed below). But the
concept of reasonableness is a
cornerstone of modern common law and
is familiar to employers in a variety of
contexts. See, e.g., Anderson v. Mt.
Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687–
88 (1946) (factfinder may base FLSA
back wages award on reasonable
estimates); 29 CFR 825.302(a) (requiring
employee to furnish notice of need for
FMLA leave ‘‘as soon as practicable’’);
42 U.S.C. 12112(a), (b)(5)(A) (requiring
reasonable accommodations for disabled
employees); 29 U.S.C. 1108(b)(2), (c)(2)
(ERISA fiduciaries are entitled to
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
receive reasonable compensation from a
plan for services provided); 29 CFR
1604.11(a) (conduct is sexual
harassment if it unreasonably interferes
with an individual’s work performance);
Burlington N. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. White,
548 U.S. 53, 67–68 (2006) (Title VII
prohibits employers from taking actions
that a reasonable employee would find
to be materially adverse); Burlington
Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 765
(1998) (employer is vicariously liable
under Title VII unless it took reasonable
steps to prevent and correct harassing
behavior); Green v. Brennan, 136 S. Ct.
1769, 1776–78 (2016) (constructive
discharge occurs when a reasonable
employee would feel compelled to
resign). Reasonableness balances a
flexible accounting of circumstances
with a sufficiently definite limit on
acceptable conduct in those contexts.
This flexible approach is appropriate to
apply to the question of whether
particular duties are a part of an
employee’s tipped occupation.
For example, consider the following
scenario: A hotel bellhop continuously
performs tipped duties such as carrying
luggage to guests’ rooms during a busy
8-hour shift and then works for an
additional 2 hours performing related
non-tipped duties such as cleaning,
organizing, and maintaining bag carts in
storage. The 2 hours of related nontipped duties would not be ‘‘for a
reasonable time’’ after the performance
of tipped duties. Accordingly, the
bellhop was engaged in a tipped
occupation (bellhop) for 8 hours and a
non-tipped occupation (cleaner) for 2
hours.
On the other hand, consider a second
scenario in which this hotel employee
works a 10-hour shift that is less busy.
Because there are fewer hotel guests to
assist, there are times during the
bellhop’s shift when he is not
transporting bags for customers. Rather,
every hour, he transports bags for
customers for approximately 48 minutes
and in between transporting bags,
spends approximately 12 minutes
performing related non-tipped duties,
such as sweeping and mopping the
entrance and cleaning bag carts. At the
end of the shift, the employee in this
scenario would have spent a total of 8
hours on tipped duties and 2 hours on
non-tipped related duties—the same
amounts as in the first scenario. But
unlike in the first scenario, each period
of related non-tipped duties would have
been performed ‘‘for a reasonable time
immediately before or after’’ the
performance of tipped duties. As such,
the employee would have been engaged
in a tipped occupation (bellhop) for the
entire 10-hour shift.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
Even though the two above scenarios
are different, the previous 80/20
approach drew no distinction between
them because it focused solely on the
precise ratio of time spent on tipped
versus related non-tipped duties. But
that focus obscures the relevant
question of whether an employee is
functionally engaged in one occupation
or two. To answer this question, it is
necessary to examine the context in
which time is spent on tipped versus
related non-tipped duties. If tipped and
related non-tipped duties were
performed at distinct times that never
overlap, the employee would be
engaged in two distinct occupations,
even if the tipped-to-related-non-tipped
ratio were more than 80/20. Conversely,
if tipped and related non-tipped duties
were performed alongside each other,
the employee would be engaged in a
single occupation, even if the tipped-torelated-non-tipped ratio were less than
80/20. The final rule’s ‘‘reasonable
time’’ standard considers the critical
context in which tipped and related
non-tipped duties are performed and
focuses on the key issue of whether nontipped duties form a substantial,
segregable part of an employee’s work.
The 80/20 approach does not adequately
address this issue.
Third, the guidance establishing the
80/20 approach did not adequately
consider the practical difficulties in
complying with a hard quantitative cap.
To do so, employers attempted to track
the amount of time employees spend
performing duties that are not tipproducing but are related to each
employee’s tipped occupation. See
Littler. But as several commenters
explained, this proved extremely
difficult, if not impossible. Inspire
Brands, for example, stated that it
implemented policies within its
timekeeping system intended to allow
employees to switch between different
job codes when engaging in different
duties, but found that doing so
‘‘required substantial managerial
resources’’ and that it was impossible to
‘‘keep track of tipped versus non-tipped
duties at such a micro level.’’ Another
commenter representing employers
stated, ‘‘[t]imekeeping systems are not
designed to deal with that level of
granularity,’’ nor ‘‘do tipped employees’
jobs allow them sufficient time to
constantly clock in under a different
code when finishing one task but before
starting another.’’ This is especially true
‘‘when the tasks are often measured in
seconds and are frequently part of a
‘multi-tasking’ approach.’’ See Johnson
Jackson. The practical difficulties of
complying with the 80/20 approach are
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
86769
also evident in case law. For example,
as the District Court for the Southern
District of Florida observed in a
decision affirmed by the Eleventh
Circuit, the non-tipped duties
performed by the employees at issue
were so ‘‘intertwined with indirect tipproducing tasks throughout the day’’
that determining precisely how much
time was spent on non-tipped related
duties was indeed ‘‘infeasible.’’ Pellon,
528 F. Supp. 2d at 1314.
The updated related duties test, in
contrast, does not require employers to
attempt a minute-by-minute accounting
of tipped employees’ work to ensure
that non-tipped related work does not
exceed a quantitative cap. Each
employee can instead perform the
related, non-tipped work of his or her
tipped occupation as needed in
conjunction with his or her tipped
work—either contemporaneously with
or for a reasonable time immediately
before or after the tipped work—and
employers may confidently take a tip
credit without precisely tracking the
time spent by the employee as he or she
moves between duties.
Fourth, the 80/20 approach was
difficult to administer because it
required employers to distinguish with
precision between non-tipped duties
(which were subject to the 20 percent
cap) and tipped duties (which were
not). In general, determining whether a
duty is tip-producing is straightforward;
WHD and courts ask whether the task
involves direct interaction with
customers. See WHD Opinion Letter
FLSA2018–27 (referring to tipped duties
as those ‘‘involv[ing] direct customer
service’’); Barnhart v. Chesapeake Bay
Seafood House Assocs., L.L.C., No. CV
JFM–16–01277, 2017 WL 1196580, at *6
(D. Md. Mar. 31, 2017) (‘‘tasks that
involve direct customer interaction
would fall squarely into the tipproducing category, and tasks that are
not customer-facing would not’’); Belt v.
P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., 401 F.
Supp. 3d 512, 519–20 (E.D. Pa. 2019)
(considering tasks that ‘‘did not involve
interacting with, nor serving food and
beverages to customers’’ to be untipped
work). But the 80/20 approach requires
precision, not generality, and, as
commenters noted, the precise minute
when an employee ceases to perform a
tip-producing duty and begins
performing a non-tipped, related duty
(and vice-versa) is not always clear. See,
e.g., Inspire Brands. One court, for
example, observed that applying the 80/
20 approach to the plaintiff skycaps,
who ‘‘me[t] airline travelers at the curb
and assist[ed] them with their luggage,’’
would require it to determine, ‘‘for
instance, how far from the curb could
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
86770
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Plaintiffs even walk before they are too
far to be considered tipped
employees[.]’’ Pellon, 528 F. Supp. 2d at
1315.
The updated related duties approach
adopted in this final rule continues to
distinguish between tip producing and
non-tip producing duties. But because
the updated test eschews a numerical
analysis, it no longer requires precise
parsing of whether tasks performed in
close conjunction with one another are
tipped duties or are non-tipped related
duties that must be aggregated against a
20 percent cap. Instead, an employer
may take a tip credit whether an
employee is performing a tipped duty or
is performing a related duty
contemporaneously with or for a
reasonable time immediately before or
after tipped duties. In addition, as
discussed further below, by using
O*NET to identify duties related to the
tipped occupation, courts will be able to
better and more consistently apply the
dual jobs regulation.
Fifth, the Department disagrees that
the 80/20 approach is more
administrable than the proposed rule.
An 80/20 approach may well be easy to
administer once the precise amount of
time an employee has spent on various
tasks has been tabulated, but it is the
categorizing of tasks and tracking of
each employee’s time that makes the 80/
20 approach difficult to administer.
Sixth, the updated related duties test
better effectuates the text of section 3(m)
than did the 80/20 approach. Section
3(m) permits employers to take a tip
credit based on whether an employee is
engaged in a tipped ‘‘occupation,’’ not
whether the employee is performing
certain kinds of duties or tasks within
the tipped occupation. See 29 U.S.C.
203(m) and (t). Because the 80/20
approach imposed a hard cap on related
non-tipped work, regardless of the
context, applying this policy sometimes
precluded an employer from taking the
tip credit, even for time when a tipped
employee arguably continued to be
engaged in his or her tipped
‘‘occupation.’’ By permitting the tip
credit for the time an employee spends
performing non-tipped related duties
contemporaneously with or for a
reasonable time immediately before or
after tipped work, the updated approach
better approximates the point at which
a tipped employee has ceased to be
engaged in his or her tipped occupation
and becomes engaged in a non-tipped
occupation.
The updated related duties test also
draws this line more effectively than the
alternative proposed by the National
Restaurant Association, which would
permit an employer to take a tip credit
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
for a full shift when an employee
performs any tipped work during the
course of the shift. For example, under
that approach an employer could take a
tip credit for the entire shift of a cook
or dishwasher whom it had directed to
perform a token amount of tipped work
during the shift.13 This is inconsistent
with the commonsense understanding
of the statutory term ‘‘occupation’’ in
the FLSA, which permits an employer
to take a tip credit only for the hours
that an employee spends working in a
tipped occupation, not for all hours
worked by an employee who spends
part of his or her time working in a
tipped occupation. Removing the rigid
20 percent limitation, but permitting an
employer to take a tip credit for time
spent on non-tipped work only when
that work is related to the tipped
occupation and performed in
conjunction with tipped work,
reasonably interprets the statutory text
while striking a balance that is both
protective of employees and manageable
for employers.
Seventh, it is not clear what time
frame should be used to determine
compliance with the 80/20 approach. As
commenters noted, there was confusion
with how the 80/20 approach would be
determined on a workweek basis. Nor is
it clear whether a workweek approach
would, in the dual jobs context, produce
results consistent with the FLSA’s
language that allows an employer to
take a tip credit based on hours worked,
not a workweek. Consider a casino that
requires its card dealers to make
periodic security rounds at their pit in
order to allow other employees to focus
fully on the tip-producing work of
dealing. Over the course of an 8-hour
shift each week, a card dealer is
required to make six half-hour rounds
monitoring gaming tables to ensure the
security of the game (for a total of 3
hours over the course of her shift). The
hours she spends monitoring gaming
tables constitute more than 20 percent
of her shift devoted to non-tipped
related duties, but less than 20 percent
of her workweek. If the workweek were
applied as the standard of measurement,
then the casino would be permitted to
take a tip credit for the time spent on
security rounds—even if that task
consumed a substantial portion of the
card dealer’s designated work day that
she could have devoted to tip-producing
work. If the 80/20 approach were
applied on a shift basis, the employer
would be denied the tip credit for all
eight hours the employee worked even
13 The employee would also need to earn at least
$30 per month in tips to meet the full criteria set
forth in 29 U.S.C. 203(t).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
though she was working in her tipped
occupation for the entire shift. This lack
of clarity and potential for unintended
outcomes counsels against continued
use of the 80/20 approach and in favor
of the updated related duties test.
Eighth, the Department disagrees with
some commenters’ argument that the
updated related duties approach
violates section 3(m)(2)(B) by allowing
employers to use tips to meet their
minimum wage obligations for nontipped work. Section 3 of the FLSA
makes clear that an employer that takes
a tip credit in compliance with section
3(m)(2)(A) does not ‘‘keep’’ tips in
violation of section 3(m)(2)(B). This is
because the two sections must be read
in harmony with each other to avoid
internal contradiction. Section
3(m)(2)(A) permits an employer to take
a tip credit for ‘‘tipped employee[s],’’
defined under section 3(t) as those
‘‘engaged in an occupation’’ in which
they ‘‘customarily and regularly receive
tips.’’ When a tipped employee
performs non-tipped duties related to
the employee’s tipped occupation either
contemporaneously with or for a
reasonable time immediately before or
after the employee’s tipped duties, the
employee continues to be ‘‘engaged’’ in
the tipped occupation under section
3(t). As a result, an employer that takes
a tip credit for this time does so in
compliance with section 3(m)(2)(A) and
thus does not violate section 3(m)(2)(B).
As long as an employee’s direct cash
wage plus tips equals the minimum
wage (and the employer has met the
other criteria for taking a tip credit)
section 6 of the FLSA is satisfied. If
tipped employees do not receive
sufficient tips to cover the minimum
wage, the employer must supplement
the cash wage payment. Compliance
with the FLSA’s minimum wage
requirement, therefore, requires
sufficient tip-generating activity to
satisfy that minimum wage obligation. It
is consistent with the FLSA for an
employer to use tips to cover an
employee’s non-tipped work that is
related to the tipped occupation, so long
as that employee is engaged in a tipped
occupation when performing the nontipped work and earns at least the
minimum wage for all hours worked.
This is the exact result envisioned by
the FLSA’s scheme of satisfying the
minimum wage with a mixture of a
direct cash wage and tips.
Ninth, the Department disagrees with
commenters’ suggestions that a return to
the 80/20 approach is appropriate given
that some Federal courts have
concluded the Department did not
sufficiently explain its reasoning for the
updated related duties test in its 2018
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
subregulatory guidance. See Williams v.
Bob Evans Rests., LLC, No. 18–01353,
2020 WL 4692504, at *9 (W.D. Pa. Aug.
13, 2020); Reynolds v. Chesapeake &
Del. Brewing Holdings, LLC, No. 19–
2184, 2020 WL 2404904 (E.D. Pa. May
12, 2020); Sicklesmith v. Hershey Entm’t
& Resorts Co., No. 19–1675, 2020 WL
902544 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 25, 2020); O’Neal
v. Denn-Ohio, LLC, No. 19–280, 2020
WL 210801 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2020);
Belt, 401 F. Supp. 3d at 512; Spencer v.
Macado’s, Inc., 399 F. Supp. 3d 545
(W.D. Va. 2019); Cope v. Let’s Eat Out,
Inc., 354 F. Supp. 3d 976 (W.D. Miss.
2019); Esry v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro,
Inc., 373 F. Supp. 3d 1205 (E.D. Ark.
2019); Berger v. Perry’s Steakhouse of
Ill., LLC, No. 14–8543, 2019 WL
7049925 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 23, 2019); Flores
v. HMS Host Corp., No. 18–3312, 2019
WL 5454647 (D. Md. Oct. 23, 2019). But
see Shaffer v. Perry’s Rests., Ltd., No.
16–1193, 2019 WL 2098116, at *1 (W.D.
Tex. Apr. 24, 2019). The Department has
now explained through this notice-andcomment rulemaking process its
reasoning for replacing the 80/20
approach with the updated related
duties test.
In sum, the Department adopts the
changes to § 531.56(e) as proposed, with
minor exceptions. First, to ensure that it
is read consistently with § 531.59(b),
which makes the tip credit available
‘‘only for hours worked by the
employee,’’ the Department replaces the
phrase ‘‘amount of time’’ in the fourth
sentence of proposed § 531.56(e)(2) with
‘‘hours.’’ This correction for consistency
does not change the meaning of the
proposed language. Thus, the fourth
sentence of § 531.56(e)(2) as adopted
reads: ‘‘An employer may take a tip
credit for any hours that an employee
performs related, non-tipped duties
contemporaneously with his or her
tipped duties, or for a reasonable time
immediately before or after performing
the tipped duties.’’ Second, as discussed
in more detail below, the Department
does not use O*NET’s list of duties for
an occupation to definitively limit the
non-tipped duties that are related to that
occupation. Rather, it refers to O*NET
as the source of a list of non-tipped
duties that are presumed to be related to
a tipped occupation.
iii. Comments Regarding the Use of
O*NET
The Department received several
comments on proposed § 531.56(e)(3),
which would use O*NET as a source for
defining which non-tipped duties are
related to a tipped occupation. Some
commenters representing employers
stated that using O*NET to define
related duties would make the tip credit
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
easier to administer. Littler, for
example, stated that employers can
‘‘simply check O*NET and assign the
duties appearing on that list. Upon
doing that, employers can take a tip
credit for the employee’s entire shift.’’
The Center for Workplace Compliance
also supported the proposed update to
the regulations, stating that it would
‘‘make compliance simpler.’’
The Department also received several
comments expressing concerns about
using O*NET to define related duties.
Some commenters, including Littler,
Fisher Phillips, and NELP, expressed
concern about the fact that O*NET’s
listings and identified job duties are
subject to change and could ‘‘even
disappear in the future.’’ Some
commenters were concerned that the list
of related duties could expand without
limit or be manipulated, and some
commenters recommended
incorporating the O*NET definitions in
place as of the date of this final rule.
The National Restaurant Association
and another commenter requested that
the Department state that a task’s
appearance on O*NET is sufficient but
not necessary to demonstrate that it is
related to the occupation. Some
commenters advocated for the
Department to state that a tipped
worker’s related duties may encompass
the duties of any tip-producing
occupation within the same industry.
Finally, State Attorneys General and
some other commenters disputed
whether further clarity regarding related
duties was necessary, pointing to
numerous court cases applying the
Department’s prior guidance, which did
not comprehensively define related
duties.
After considering the comments, the
Department finalizes § 531.56(e)(3)
largely as proposed but with an addition
to account for concerns raised by
commenters. Specifically, the
Department adds the phrase ‘‘presumed
to be’’ in two locations in § 531.56(e)(3),
so that the section now states that a nontipped duty is presumptively related to
a tip-producing occupation if it is listed
as a task of the tip-producing
occupation in O*NET.
O*NET is the most current and
comprehensive source of descriptive
occupational information in the United
States. O*NET has conducted extensive
research and collects occupational data
from multiple sources: Incumbent
workers, occupational experts,
employers, and trade and professional
associations.14 This multiple-method
14 More detailed information about O*NET’s data
collection can be found at https://
www.onetcenter.org/ombclearance.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
86771
approach ensures high quality data,
which facilitates O*NET’s ability to
identify new and emerging occupations
in high-growth industries, and new and
changing skills requirements in existing
occupations. O*NET also uses a flexible,
common language-based system to
describe the world of work, making it
accessible and understandable. In
addition to serving job seekers and
students, O*NET is used by state
workforce agencies and the
Department’s Employment and Training
Administration. Therefore, the
Department believes that O*NET is the
best way to give employers and
employees clear, comprehensible
information on related duties that will
remain current, even in a changing
economy. As noted by commenters,
employers may simply check O*NET
and take the tip credit for time spent by
their employees performing the related
duties appearing on the list.
Although some commenters
expressed concern that O*NET will not
be maintained in perpetuity, the
Department has no intention of making
O*NET unavailable at any time in the
near future. O*NET has existed for more
than 20 years and replaced a similar
product, the Dictionary of Occupational
Titles, which had existed since the
1930s. Should O*NET be discontinued,
the Department would revisit the
regulation. The Department also
declines to incorporate O*NET’s current
list of tasks into the regulation because
doing so would limit its usefulness with
regard to both changing and emerging
occupations. In addition, this would
require the Department to expend
substantial resources to identify which
of the nearly 1,000 occupations in
O*NET are tipped and which are not,
without the benefit of stakeholder input
in making these determinations.
Moreover, some commenters
suggested that adopting O*NET by
reference is problematic because
automatic updates to the database
would not go through notice and
comment. However, in response to those
comments and others concerned with
changes to O*NET, and in recognizing
that O*NET is updated using
occupational data from various sources
and may not accurately capture all
related non-tipped duties, the
Department is not adopting the O*NET
listings as binding requirements. Rather,
the Department is adopting O*NET only
to assist in determining when a tipped
employee’s non-tipped duties are
related to his or her tipped occupation.
Specifically, the final rule explains that
the Department will look to the tasks
listed within the tip-producing
occupation in O*NET as guidance on
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
86772
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
whether a particular non-tipped duty is
related to a tipped occupation. In other
words, a non-tipped duty listed as a task
of a tip-producing occupation in O*NET
indicates that this duty can be treated as
related to the tipped occupation.
However, if industry-wide practices and
trends demonstrate that a listed duty is
not actually related to the tipped
occupation, or that an unlisted duty is
actually related to that occupation, then
employers would not be able to rely on
O*NET as a compliance assistance tool
in that particular case. In sum, because
any updates to O*NET will not result in
additional legal requirements for
affected parties, those changes are not
subject to notice and comment.
Adopting fluctuating databases and
standards as guidance is a common
regulatory practice. For example, the
Department refers to the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles, O*NET’s
predecessor, when determining whether
a public employee’s volunteer activity is
in the ‘‘same type of services’’ that he
is paid to perform. See 29 CFR 553.103;
FLSA2008–16 at *3 (Dec. 18, 2008)
(clarifying that referring to O*NET for
this determination is also acceptable).
Other Federal agencies also use this
approach in a variety of contexts. Social
Security Administration regulations, for
instance, refer to the Department’s
Dictionary of Occupational Titles,
several Census publications, and the
Occupational Outlook Handbook
published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics to rule on benefits
applications. See 20 CFR 416.966(d).
Meanwhile, the Department of
Education requires postsecondary
schools to be accredited, but outsources
those accrediting decisions to
accrediting bodies, each of which makes
its own accreditation rules. See 34 CFR
part 602.
Although some commenters
expressed concerns about potential
manipulation of O*NET, the
Department is confident that O*NET,
upon which numerous stakeholders and
governmental entities depend, is
reliable. O*NET’s data collection
process ensures this reliability by
incorporating, among other methods,
surveying and random sampling, data
cleaning, weighting, and the use of
experts and occupational analysts.
Several commenters asked the
Department to allow employers to deem
as ‘‘related’’ to a tipped occupation
additional duties that are neither
included in the O*NET duties list for
the occupation nor as examples in the
regulation. The Department does not
believe that this explicit approach is
necessary. Under § 531.56(e)(3) as
proposed, O*NET’s list of non-tipped
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
duties for an occupation was
exhaustive; non-tipped duties were not
related to the occupation unless they
appeared in the O*NET list of duties.
But under § 531.56(e)(3) as adopted,
O*NET’s lists are no longer
exhaustive—O*NET lists duties that are
presumed to be related to the tipped
occupation, but that list is no longer
exhaustive.
The Department disagrees with the
commenters who dispute the need for
further clarity regarding related duties.
The extensive litigation over the 80/20
approach attests to the difficulty in
determining whether particular nontipped duties were related to an
employee’s tipped occupation. In many
of these cases, courts declined to
dismiss at the pleading stage the
plaintiffs’ claims that they performed
unrelated duties for which they were
improperly compensated because facts
developed through discovery could
ultimately show that those duties were
related to the plaintiffs’ tipped
occupations. See, e.g., Knox v. Jones
Grp., 201 F. Supp. 3d 951, 959 (S.D. Ind.
2016) (citing precedent in reasoning that
‘‘the division between permissible,
related duties and impermissible,
unrelated duties is not categorical’’; the
court would ultimately need to consider
‘‘the qualitative and quantitative nature
of the allegedly unrelated duties’’);
Stokes v. Wings Inv., LLC, 213 F. Supp.
3d 1097, 1102 (S.D. Ind. 2016) (‘‘After
conducting discovery, Defendant might
be able to show that all of the duties
identified by Plaintiff are related to her
tipped occupation[.]’’). Using O*NET to
identify non-tipped duties that are
presumed to be related to particular
tipped occupations will make it simpler
for employers, employees, and courts
alike to distinguish related duties for
which employers can take a tip credit
from unrelated duties for which for
which they cannot. Section 531.56(e)(3)
as adopted may not furnish as much
certainty as that section did as
proposed, but it furnishes much more
certainty than the regulatory text prior
to this final rule, which identified few
duties as related or unrelated.
Additionally, the Department sought
and received comment on the use of
O*NET as a tool for identifying nontipped duties that would be related to a
tipped occupation, and the majority of
commenters agreed that using the
database would be useful and would
provide much-needed clarity.
Finally, the Department declines
commenters’ requests to expand the
related duties for a particular
occupation beyond the O*NET tasks
associated with that occupation to
include any tasks associated with any
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
other tipped occupation in the same
industry. One commenter, by way of
example, noted an overlap in a number
of tasks shared by bartenders and
servers. That example itself
demonstrates why adopting that sameindustry standard would be
inappropriate. As reflected in O*NET,
the North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) places
bartenders and servers within the
Accommodation and Food Services
industry—an industry that also includes
occupations such as hotel maids and
gaming dealers. It is not part of a hotel
bartender’s tipped occupation to equip
rooms with linens, nor is it part of a
hotel maid’s tipped occupation to deal
cards or collect wagers.
In light of these considerations, the
Department finalizes the regulation to
include the O*NET database as a source
of non-tipped duties that are presumed
to be related to a tipped occupation. The
Department will continue to evaluate
and refine its approach with respect to
O*NET to address concerns that may
arise.
E. Civil Money Penalties
i. Civil Money Penalties for Violations
of Section 3(m)(2)(B)
Section 1201(b)(3) of the CAA
amended FLSA section 16(e)(2) by
adding new penalty language: ‘‘Any
person who violates section 3(m)(2)(B)
shall be subject to a civil penalty not to
exceed $1,100 for each such violation,
as the Secretary determines appropriate,
in addition to being liable to the
employee or employees affected for all
tips unlawfully kept, and an additional
equal amount as liquidated damages, as
described in subsection (b).’’ The
Department’s current enforcement
policy states that the CAA amendments
give the Department discretion to
impose civil money penalties (CMPs) up
to $1,100 15 when employers unlawfully
keep employee tips (including when
they allow managers or supervisors to
keep any portion of employees’ tips).
See FAB 2018–3. The Department
currently follows its normal procedures
for FLSA CMPs with regard to violations
of section 3(m)(2)(B), ‘‘including by
determining whether the violation is
repeated or willful.’’ See id.
The Department proposed to
incorporate this current guidance into
the regulations: To use the same
15 The CMP amounts in this rule are adjusted for
inflation as required by the Federal Civil Penalties
Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–410),
as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement
Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–134, sec. 31001(s)) and the
Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act
Improvements Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114–74, sec.
701).
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
guidelines and procedures that it
follows for assessing CMPs for
violations of the minimum wage
(section 6) and overtime (section 7)
requirements of the FLSA as it does for
violations of section 3(m)(2)(B). That
means the Department proposed to
assess CMPs for violations of section
3(m)(2)(B) only when it determines the
violation is repeated or willful.
Some commenters generally
supported the proposal regarding CMPs.
The National Federation of Independent
Business (NFIB) noted that the
Department ‘‘has taken into account the
practical realities of labor compliance
for small businesses’’ by proposing to
exercise its discretion by assessing
CMPs for ‘‘violations of section
3(m)(2)(B) only if committed repeatedly
or willfully.’’ Other commenters, such
as the National Employment Lawyers
Association, the National Women’s Law
Center, and NELP, opposed the
proposal, arguing that because
‘‘Congress used the words ‘repeatedly or
willfully’ for minimum wage and
overtime violations [in section 16(e)(2)]
but omitted such words with respect to
section 3(m)(2)(B),’’ that ‘‘demonstrates
Congress’ clear intent that civil
penalties for this latter section do not
require a repeated or willful violation.’’
Senator Murray and Representative
DeLauro stated that the relevant
language ‘‘clearly provides for a civil
penalty . . . against ‘any person’ and for
‘each’ violation of the tip-protection
language’’ and argued that the
Department’s proposal was ‘‘in direct
contravention of this plain language.’’
The CAA amendments state that
‘‘[a]ny person who violates section
203(m)(2)(B) of this title shall be subject
to a civil penalty not to exceed $1,100
for each such violation, as the Secretary
determines appropriate . . . .’’ 29
U.S.C. 216(e)(2) (emphasis added). The
plain meaning of this language is that
the Department has the discretion to
determine when civil penalties are
appropriate. While Senator Murray and
Representative DeLauro’s comment
acknowledged that this language gives
the Secretary discretion, they argued
‘‘that discretion is to be used to
determine the amount of the penalty up
to $1,100 depending on the particular
circumstances,’’ rather than whether to
assess a CMP at all. The Department
does not see any inconsistency with its
approach here. Effectively, the
Department is exercising its discretion
‘‘to determine the amount of the penalty
. . . depending on the particular
circumstances’’; it has determined to
assess a CMP of $0 for violations that
are not repeated or willful. Section
216(e) also authorizes the Department to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
assess CMPs ‘‘not to exceed’’ a specified
amount in the context of child labor,
minimum wage, and overtime
violations, and the Department has long
used such discretion to determine the
amount of penalties assessed in those
areas. Unlike the CAA, however, those
authorizations do not include the
language ‘‘as the Secretary determines
appropriate.’’ Therefore, the CAA
language granting the Secretary
discretion to determine the
appropriateness of CMPs for violations
of section 3(m)(2)(B) must refer to the
Secretary’s discretion to determine
whether to assess CMPs at all.
The Department in the 2019 NPRM
proposed to explain in the regulations
its intent to exercise its discretion by
limiting the assessment of CMPs to
repeated and willful violations of
section 3(m)(2)(B). Assessing CMPs only
when an employer has repeatedly or
willfully violated section 3(m)(2)(B), as
opposed to doing so for a first-time
violation, is consistent with how the
Department enforces other FLSA wage
violations. The Department has been
assessing CMPs for repeated or willful
violations of the minimum wage and
overtime requirements of the FLSA
using the guidelines in part 578 and
procedures in part 580 for nearly three
decades. This consistency of approach
creates familiarity with the
Department’s requirements in both the
public and in the Department’s staff, in
turn engendering consistency of
compliance among employers and
consistency in enforcement by the
Department’s staff, and ultimately
improves public trust in the law and the
Department’s enforcement of it. For
these reasons, the Department finalizes
the revisions to the regulations at 29
CFR 578.1, 578.4, 579.1, 580.2, 580.3,
580.12, and 580.18 as proposed.
In addition to clarifying the
circumstances under which it will seek
CMPs, the Department proposed to
revise 29 CFR 578.3 and 579.2 to clarify
how it determines whether a violation is
willful for purposes of assessing CMPs.
See 84 FR 53964–65. As explained in
the NPRM, the Department’s definition
of a ‘‘willful’’ violation in §§ 578.3 and
579.2 is based on McLaughlin v.
Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128, 133
(1988), which held that a violation is
willful if the employer ‘‘knew or
showed reckless disregard’’ for whether
its conduct was prohibited by the FLSA.
Sections 578.3(c)(1) and 579.2
incorporate this holding and state that
‘‘[a]ll of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the violation shall be taken
into account in determining whether a
violation was willful.’’ The Department
proposed no changes to this language.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
86773
Previous §§ 578.3(c)(2) and (3) and
579.2 stated that ‘‘an employer’s
conduct shall be deemed knowing’’ if
the employer received advice from
WHD that its conduct is unlawful.
These sections further stated that ‘‘an
employer’s conduct shall be deemed to
be in reckless disregard’’ of the FLSA’s
requirements ‘‘if the employer should
have inquired further’’ into whether its
conduct complied with the FLSA ‘‘and
failed to make adequate further
inquiry.’’ In the NPRM, the Department
discussed concerns with this language
that two appellate courts had identified.
See 84 FR 53964–65 (discussing Rhea
Lana, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor, 824 F.3d
1023, 1030–32 (D.C. Cir. 2016), and
Baystate Alt. Staffing, Inc. v. Herman,
163 F.3d 668, 680–81 (1st Cir. 1998)).
Those courts noted the inconsistency
between the regulation’s language, on
the one hand, that conduct ‘‘shall be
deemed knowing’’ if the employer was
previously advised by WHD that the
conduct was unlawful, and its language,
on the other hand, derived from
Richland Shoe that WHD shall take into
account ‘‘[a]ll of the facts and
circumstances surrounding the
violation’’ when determining
willfulness. See id. The Department
explained in the NPRM that it does
evaluate all of the facts and
circumstances surrounding a violation
when litigating willfulness and that
while an employer’s receipt of advice
from WHD that its conduct was
unlawful can be sufficient to prove
willfulness, notwithstanding the
regulatory language that appears to be to
the contrary, it would not necessarily be
so. See 84 FR 53965. In light of the
appellate courts’ opinions and the
Department’s acknowledgement of how
it litigates willfulness, the NPRM
proposed to revise §§ 578.3(c)(2)–(3) and
579.2 to clarify that, in considering all
of the facts and circumstances, an
employer’s receipt of advice from WHD
that its conduct is unlawful and its
failure to inquire further regarding the
legality of its conduct are each ‘‘a
relevant fact and circumstance’’ in
determining willfulness. See 84 FR
53978.
Some commenters supported the
proposed revision. The Center for
Workplace Compliance (CWC)
explained that, under the proposal,
‘‘advice from [WHD] about the
lawfulness of conduct would be a
relevant factor in determining
willfulness, but would not
automatically trigger the standard.’’
CWC stated that the proposed revision
‘‘more closely aligns with federal court
precedent’’ and is ‘‘a more practical
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
86774
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
interpretation that recognizes that
employers should not be automatically
subject to civil money penalties where
legitimate questions exist concerning
coverage of the FLSA.’’ Fisher Phillips
described the proposed revision as
‘‘vague’’ but asserted that ‘‘there is
[often] a legitimate dispute with the
Department’s position’’—suggesting that
an employer’s receipt of advice from
WHD that its conduct was unlawful
should not always mean that the
violation was willful.
Other commenters, such as Texas
RioGrande Legal Aid and NELA,
opposed the proposed revision. They
described § 578.3(c) as stating
‘‘longstanding, bright line rules’’ that
‘‘promote consistency in application
and certainty for employers.’’ They
asserted that, ‘‘in redefining willfulness,
the Department is using the need to
implement new worker protections in
the FLSA as a pretext to weaken worker
protections—in this case, far beyond the
context of tipped occupations.’’ They
stated that the Department ‘‘is
misguided at best . . . to apply a
vaguer, weaker standard to the new
statutory provision at hand, and it is
beyond the pale to apply the same
proposal to minimum wage, overtime,
and child labor standards that are not at
issue in this rulemaking.’’ They
criticized the proposed revision as
treating, in Texas RioGrande Legal Aid’s
words, ‘‘an employer’s decision to
ignore advice from the Department as a
mere factor to be considered rather
than’’ evidence that is ‘‘sufficient’’ to
show that the violation was willful.
Finally, NELA stated that the
Department did not furnish adequate
notice of its intent to change ‘‘nontip’’
portions of the regulations and that the
NPRM’s statement that § 578.3(c)
contradicts Supreme Court precedent
was considered and rejected when it
was promulgated in 1992.
Having considered the comments, the
Department adopts the proposed
revisions with some modifications. The
final rule revises § 578.3(c)(2) and
corresponding language in § 579.2 to
state that, in considering all of the facts
and circumstances, an employer’s
receipt of advice from WHD that its
conduct was unlawful can be sufficient
to show that the violation is willful but
is not automatically dispositive. This
revision addresses concerns raised by
commenters that one fact should not
automatically result in a violation being
willful but that the fact identified in
§ 578.3(c)(2) can be ‘‘sufficient’’ for a
violation to be willful. In addition, the
final rule deletes § 578.3(c)(3) and
corresponding language in § 579.2.
Upon further consideration,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
§ 578.3(c)(3) does not just identify a fact
and address how that fact impacts a
willfulness finding (like § 578.3(c)(2)
does). Instead, it addresses a scenario—
should have inquired further but did not
do so adequately—that is tantamount to
reckless disregard. See Davila v.
Menendez, 717 F.3d 1179, 1185 (11th
Cir. 2013). Accordingly, revising
§ 578.3(c)(3) in the same manner as
§ 578.3(c)(2) did not seem helpful, and
retaining § 578.3(c)(3) without
modifying it would not resolve the
concerns raised by the appellate
decisions discussed above.
These modified revisions, including
deleting § 578.3(c)(3) and corresponding
language in § 579.2, resolve the tensions
identified within the Department’s
regulations and with the Supreme
Court’s decision and comport more
precisely with how the Department
litigates willfulness than did the
original proposed revisions. An
employer’s receipt of advice from WHD
that its conduct is unlawful is a
relevant, and may be a determining,
factor regarding that employer’s
willfulness—but the law also requires
examining all facts and circumstances
surrounding the violation. Among other
situations, proof that an employer
should have inquired further into
whether its conduct was in compliance
with the Act and failed to make
adequate further inquiry is only one
indicium of reckless disregard. Finally,
the Department gave adequate notice of
its intent to revise §§ 578.3(c)(2)–(3) and
579.2, and the Rhea Lana and Baystate
decisions give a sufficient basis for
reconsidering its regulations on
willfulness.
F. Additional Proposed Regulatory
Revisions
In the NPRM, the Department
proposed to revise § 531.50 to reflect the
language that the CAA added to the
FLSA. The Department also proposed to
update §§ 531.50, 531.51, 531.52,
531.55, 531.56, 531.59, and 531.60 to
reflect the new statutory citation to the
FLSA’s existing tip credit language,
previously cited as section 3(m), as
section 3(m)(2)(A). Additionally, the
Department proposed to clarify
references in §§ 531.56(d), 531.59(a) and
(b), and 531.60 to the amount an
employer can take as a tip credit under
current section 3(m)(2)(A). The
Department’s regulations currently state
that an employer can take a tip credit for
each employee equal to the difference
between the minimum wage required by
section 6(a)(1) of the FLSA (currently
$7.25 an hour) and $2.13 an hour. To
ensure that the Department’s regulations
clearly state employers’ obligations
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
under the FLSA, the Department
proposed to revise §§ 531.56(d),
531.59(a) and (b), and 531.60 to state,
consistent with the text of the statute,
that the tip credit permitted by section
3(m)(2)(A) is equal to the difference
between the Federal minimum wage
and the cash wage paid by the
employer. That cash wage must be at
least $2.13 per hour, but the statute does
not preclude an employer from paying
more.
The Department received little
comment on these proposed regulatory
revisions, which merely update the
regulations to reflect the new statutory
language and citations added by the
CAA amendments and clarify other
references consistent with the statutory
text. Accordingly, the Department
adopts as proposed the updates to
§§ 531.50, 531.51, 531.52, 531.55,
531.56, 531.59, and 531.60 to reflect the
new statutory citation to the FLSA’s
existing tip credit language, previously
cited as section 3(m), as section
3(m)(2)(A) and to revise § 531.50 to
reflect the language that the CAA added
to the FLSA. Additionally, the
Department adopts as proposed the
clarifying references in §§ 531.56(d),
531.59(a) and (b), and 531.60 to the
amount an employer can take as a tip
credit under section 3(m)(2)(A).
In the NPRM, the Department
proposed to amend the tip language of
its Executive Order 13658 regulations.
Executive Order 13658 raised the hourly
minimum wage paid by contractors to
workers performing work on or in
connection with covered Federal
contracts. See E.O. 13658, 79 FR 9851
(Feb. 12, 2014). The Executive order
also established a tip credit for workers
covered by the Order who are tipped
employees pursuant to section 3(t) of
the FLSA. Section 4(c) of the Executive
Order encourages the Department, when
promulgating regulations under that
Order, to incorporate existing
‘‘definitions, procedures, remedies, and
enforcement processes’’ from a number
of laws that the agency enforces,
including the FLSA, and the
Department’s current Executive Order
13658 regulations are modeled after the
Department’s current FLSA tip
regulations. The Department proposed
to amend § 10.28, consistent with its
proposed rescissions to portions of the
Department’s FLSA regulations, to
remove restrictions on an employer’s
use of nontraditional tip pools and to
otherwise align those regulations with
the authority in the Executive Order.
The Department also proposed to amend
§ 10.28, consistent with its proposed
revisions to § 531.56(e), to reflect its
current guidance on when an employee
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
performing non-tipped work constitutes
a tipped employee for the purposes of
3(t). The Department received few
comments on the proposal to amend
§ 10.28. The Center for Workplace
Compliance indicated that they
‘‘support DOL’s corresponding revisions
to the regulations implementing the
federal contractor minimum wage.’’ The
Department continues to believe that
since many Federal contractors also are
subject to the FLSA regulations
proposed, it is important to align the
corresponding regulations in part 10.
Accordingly, in this final rule the
Department adopts § 10.28 as proposed,
with these exceptions: As with the
fourth sentence in § 531.56(e)(2), the
Department replaces the phrase
‘‘amount of time’’ in the fourth sentence
of § 10.28(b)(2)(ii) with ‘‘hours,’’ so that
sentence as adopted reads: ‘‘An
employer may take a tip credit for any
hours that an employee performs
related, non-tipped duties
contemporaneously with his or her
tipped duties, or for a reasonable time
immediately before or after performing
the tipped duties.’’ Additionally, as
with the changes to § 531.56(e)(3), the
Department adds the phrase ‘‘presumed
to be’’ in two locations in
§ 10.28(b)(2)(iii).
The Department attempted to use
gender-neutral phrasing in its proposed
regulations. Texas RioGrande Legal Aid
appreciated the Department’s efforts but
noted some omissions. In response, the
Department has made revisions to
§§ 531.54(a) and 531.56(a), (c), and (e) to
make these sections gender-neutral.
Finally, in this final rule the
Department corrects a typographical
error in the NPRM, identified by the
NFIB. In the authority section of the
regulatory text, the Department corrects
the authority to cite Title 5, not Title 4.
The Department also corrects an
additional typographical error in
§ 10.28(b)(2)(iii) referencing examples
described in paragraph (b)(2)(ii).
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and its
attendant regulations, 5 CFR part 1320,
require the Department to consider the
impact of paperwork and other
information collection burdens imposed
on the public. This final rule will revise
the existing information collection
burden estimates previously approved
under OMB control number 1235–0018
(Records to be Kept by Employers—Fair
Labor Standards Act) because employers
may choose to pay the full Federal
minimum wage and not take a tip credit,
and collect tips to operate an employerrequired, mandatory tip pooling
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
arrangement, thereby triggering the new
recordkeeping requirement in
§ 516.28(b).
In accordance with the PRA, the
Department solicited comments on the
FLSA information collections in the
NPRM published October 8, 2019, see
84 FR 53956, as the NPRM was expected
to impact these collections. 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2). The Department also
submitted a contemporaneous request
for OMB review of the proposed
revisions to the FLSA information
collections, in accordance with 44
U.S.C. 3507(d). The Department opened
OMB control number 1235–0NEW for
this action and OMB assigned control
number 1235–0030 for this action.16 As
the PRA requires, the Department
submitted the information collection
revisions to OMB for review to reflect
changes that would result from this final
rule. The Department reports a slight
burden increase for employers keeping
records concerning employees who
receive tips. OMB asked the Department
to resubmit the information collection
request upon promulgation of the final
rule and after considering public
comments on the proposed rule.
Circumstances Necessitating
Collection: FLSA section 11(c) requires
covered employers to make, keep, and
preserve records of employees and their
wages, hours, and other conditions of
employment, as prescribed by
regulation. The Department’s
regulations at 29 CFR part 516 establish
the basic FLSA recordkeeping
requirements. Section 516.28(a)
currently requires employers to keep
certain records concerning tipped
employees for whom the employer takes
a tip credit under the FLSA. Among
other things, § 516.28(a) requires that
the employer identify each employee for
whom the employer takes a tip credit,
identify the hourly tip credit for each
such employee, and maintain records
regarding the weekly or monthly
amount of tips received (which may
consist of IRS Form 4070) as reported by
the employee to the employer. The new
recordkeeping regulations found at
§ 516.28(b)(1) and (2) require an
employer that does not take a tip credit,
16 The NPRM for this final rule cited 1235–0NEW
as the OMB control number for revising information
collection burdens previously approved under
control number 1235–0018. A different control
number was needed for this action because a
revision of 1235–0018 was already under review for
another of the Department’s rulemakings. The
creation of a new control number allowed OMB to
process this action. On December 10, 2019, OMB
issued a notice of action assigning new control
number 1235–0030. Upon conclusion of this action
by OMB, the Department will submit a
nonsubstantive change request to combine the
control numbers 1235–0018 with 1235–0030.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
86775
but that collects employees’ tips to
operate a mandatory tip pooling
arrangement, to indicate on its pay
records each employee who receives
tips and to maintain records of the
weekly or monthly amount of tips that
each such employee receives (this may
consist of reports that the employees
make to the employer on IRS Form
4070). The increase in the number of
respondents and, accordingly, the
burden hours associated with records to
be kept under § 516.28(b)(1)–(2), is
attributable to an expanding economy
increasing the number of establishments
employing individuals who receive tips
since the last PRA revision of this
recordkeeping requirement.
Public Comments: The Department
sought public comments regarding the
burdens imposed by information
collections contained in the NPRM. The
Department received few comments
relevant to the PRA. The Pennsylvania
Department of Labor and Industry
expressed support for the § 516.28
requirement ‘‘that employers who take a
tip credit must record which employees
are tipped employees.’’
An agency may not conduct an
information collection unless it has a
currently valid OMB approval, and the
Department submitted the identified
information-collection contained in the
NPRM to OMB for review under the
PRA for control number 1235–0030. See
44 U.S.C. 3507(d); 5 CFR 1320.11. The
Department has resubmitted the revised
FLSA information collections to OMB
for approval, and intends to publish a
notice announcing OMB’s decision
regarding this information collection
request. A copy of the information
collection request can be obtained at
http://www.reginfo.gov or by contacting
the Wage and Hour Division as shown
in the For Further Information Contact
section of this preamble.
Total annual burden estimates, which
reflect both the existing and new
responses for the recordkeeping
information collection, are summarized
as follows:
Type of Review: Revision of a
currently approved collection.
Agency: Wage and Hour Division,
Department of Labor.
Title: Records to be Kept by
Employers—Fair Labor Standards Act.
OMB Control Number: 1235–0030.
Affected Public: Private Sector:
Businesses or other for-profits, farms,
and not-for-profit institutions; State,
local and tribal governments; and
individuals or households.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
3,763,890 (29,296 from this rulemaking).
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
86776
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Estimated Number of Responses:
43,709,493 (703,104 from this
rulemaking).
Estimated Burden Hours: 983,359
hours (1,953 from this rulemaking).
Estimated Time per Response:
Various (unaffected by this rulemaking).
Frequency: Various (unaffected by
this rulemaking).
Other Burden Cost: $0.
V. Analysis Conducted in Accordance
With Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563, Improved
Regulation and Regulatory Review
A. Introduction
Under Executive Order 12866, OMB’s
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs determines whether a regulatory
action is significant and, therefore,
subject to the requirements of the
Executive Order and OMB review.17
Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
defines a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
as an action that is likely to result in a
rule that: (1) Has an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affects in a material way a
sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or state, local or
tribal governments or communities (also
referred to as economically significant);
(2) creates serious inconsistency or
otherwise interferes with an action
taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially alters the budgetary impacts
of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan
programs, or the rights and obligations
of recipients thereof; or (4) raises novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
order. Because the annual effect of this
rule would be greater than $100 million,
this rule is economically significant
under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866.
Executive Order 13563 directs
agencies to propose or adopt a
regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that its benefits justify its
costs; that it is tailored to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
achieving the regulatory objectives; and
that, in choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, the agency has
selected the approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563
recognizes that some benefits are
difficult to quantify and states that,
when appropriate and permitted by law,
agencies may consider and discuss
qualitatively values that are difficult or
impossible to quantify, including
17 58
FR 51735 (Sept. 30, 1993).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
equity, human dignity, fairness, and
distributive impacts.
B. Economic Analysis
i. Introduction
In March 2018, Congress amended
section 3(m) and sections 16(b), (c), and
(e) of the FLSA to prohibit employers
from keeping their employees’ tips, to
permit recovery of tips that an employer
unlawfully keeps, and to suspend the
operations of the portions of the 2011
final rule that restricted tip pooling
when employers do not take a tip credit.
This analysis examines the economic
impact associated with the Department’s
implementation of those amendments.
Specifically, it examines the possible
transfers resulting from employers who
implement a new nontraditional tip
pool that includes ‘‘back-of-the-house’’
employees (i.e., janitors, chefs,
dishwashers, and food-preparation
workers) who formerly either did not
claim a tip credit and previously did not
have a mandatory tip pool, or who only
had a traditional tip pool limited to
‘‘front-of-the-house’’ employees. The
Department is also amending its ‘‘dual
jobs’’ regulation to replace the 80/20
approach with the updated related
duties test. The Department
qualitatively discusses potential
economic impacts of this update but
does not quantify them due to lack of
data and the wide range of possible
responses by market actors that cannot
be predicted with specificity.
Commentators provided neither needed
data nor a reliable quantitative estimate
of economic impacts that the
Department could use. The Department
quantified rule familiarization costs and
qualitatively discusses additional costs,
cost savings, and benefits. To perform
the quantitative analysis, the
Department compared the impact
relative to a pre-statutory baseline (i.e.,
before Congress amended the FLSA in
March 2018). If the Department were to
look at economic impacts relative to a
post-statutory baseline, there would
likely be no impact of the tip pooling
aspect of the final rule, aside from rule
familiarization costs, as the transfers
arise from the changes put forth in the
statute.
The economic analysis covers
employees in two industries and in two
occupations within those industries.
The two industries are classified under
the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) as
722410 (Drinking Places (Alcoholic
Beverages)) and 722511 (Full-service
Restaurants); referred to in this analysis
as ‘‘restaurants and drinking places.’’
The two occupations are classified
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
under Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
Standard Occupational Classification
(SOC) codes SOC 35–3031 (Waiters and
Waitresses) and SOC 35–3011
(Bartenders).18 The Department
understands that there are other
occupations beyond servers and
bartenders with tipped workers, such as
SOC 35–9011 (Dining room and
Cafeteria Attendants and Bartender
Helpers), SOC 35–9031 (Hosts and
Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, and
Coffee Shop), and others, as well as
other industries that employ workers
who receive tips, such as NAICS 722515
(snack and nonalcoholic beverage bars),
NAICS 722513 (limited service
restaurants), NAICS 721110 (hotels and
motels), and NAICS 713210 (casinos).
Nonetheless, the Department
concentrates its analysis on the above
two occupations because they constitute
a large percentage of total tipped
workers and more than half (56.5
percent) of the workers in these
occupations receive tips (see Table 1 for
shares of workers in these occupations
who report receiving tips).
The analysis presents its estimates
over a 10-year time horizon. When
summarizing the costs and transfers of
the rule, the Department presents the
first year’s impact, as well as the 10-year
annualized costs and transfers with 3
percent and 7 percent discounting.19
Since the Department’s analysis relies
on data collected before 2020, it reflects
the state of the economy prior to the
COVID–19 pandemic. The Department
acknowledges that data on tipped
workers will possibly look different
following the economic effects of the
pandemic, and discusses potential
effects here.
The COVID–19 pandemic has greatly
affected the restaurant industry and
tipped workers. The unemployment rate
for the Food Services and Drinking
Places industry jumped from 5.7 percent
in February 2020 to 35.4 percent in
April 2020. Although the rate has fallen
by more than half of its peak, 16.4
percent of these workers were still
unemployed as of September 2020.20
Even as restaurants begin to reopen
across the nation, and tipped workers
return to their jobs, uncertainty exists
18 In the Current Population Survey, these
occupations correspond to Bartenders (Census Code
4040) and Waiters and Waitresses (Census Code
4110). The industries correspond to Restaurants and
Other Food Services (Census Code 8680) and
Drinking Places, Alcoholic Beverages (Census Code
8690).
19 Discount rates are directed by OMB. See
Circular A–4, OMB (Sept. 17, 2003).
20 BLS Current Population Survey, https://
data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU04034262/
?amp%253bdata_tool=XGtable&output_
view=data&include_graphs=true.
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
regarding the long-term impacts. Even
in areas with limited pandemic-related
restrictions, business may be affected as
some customers may remain reluctant to
eat at restaurants due to the pandemic.
As a result, employers may not be hiring
or staffing at pre-pandemic levels, at
least in the near term. In a survey of full
service restaurant operators conducted
by the National Restaurant Association
from August 26 through September 1,
2020, staffing plans were mixed—26
percent of operators said they plan to
add employees and 25 percent said they
plan to lay off or furlough employees.21
During the short term, as the economic
effects of the pandemic linger, the labor
market for tipped workers will be less
predictable, and aggregate tips may be
reduced, though the amount of tips per
employee may or may not be impacted.
Because unemployment in tipped
industries is still higher than it was at
the beginning of the year, the transfer
estimate for the first year of the RIA’s
time horizon could be reduced. The
Department lacks data to determine how
much the transfer estimate will be
reduced, and believes that this effect
will be temporary.
The Department acknowledges these
changes in the industry but believes that
the justifications for the Rule remain as
strong as—if not more so than—before
the pandemic. More flexibility in
compensation and labor allocation will
help businesses retain workers and
maintain capacity. Further, the
increased cooperation and efficiency
that the final rule promotes will help
businesses maintain quality of service—
and therefore support tipped-employee
compensation and provide increased
certainty to tipped workers—at a time
when the industry as a whole is
struggling.
ii. Estimated Transfers
Under this regulation, transfers could
arise when employers that already pay
the full Federal minimum wage and
previously did not have a mandatory tip
pool or had only a traditional tip pool
institute nontraditional tip pools in
which tipped employees, such as
servers and bartenders, are required to
share tips with employees who do not
customarily and regularly receive tips,
such as cooks and dishwashers. The
Department believes that including
back-of-the-house workers in tip pools
could help promote cooperation and
collaboration among employees. This
increased cooperation and flexibility
21 National Restaurant Association, Restaurant
Employment Recovery is in Danger of Stalling,
Sept. 4, 2020, https://restaurant.org/articles/news/
restaurant-employment-recovery-is-in-danger.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
could lead to Pareto improvement:
Efficiencies that allow employers to
engage in tip-pooling without
decreasing wages for anyone while
increasing wages for some. However,
even in the event that tip-pooling
requires a transfer from the front-of-thehouse, directly observable transfers will
mainly occur among employees because
the statute prohibits employers from
keeping employee tips.
It is possible that there will be
subsequent transfers after the initial tip
pooling and redistribution takes place.
Because back-of-the-house workers
could now be receiving tips, employers
may offset this increase in total
compensation by reducing the direct
wage that they pay back-of-the-house
workers (as long as employers do not
reduce the employees’ direct wages
below the applicable minimum wage),
and such an outcome is what is
modeled to produce the quantitative
estimate of transfers. However, there are
reasons to believe this may not be
common in practice. Consider a pastry
chef currently making $20 per hour. The
Department assumes that, in practice,
this established wage would restrict an
employer’s ability to reduce the total
compensation wage (i.e., wages plus
pooled tips) below that rate. The chef,
who last year was paid $20 per hour in
Georgia, could in theory, with this rule,
have her direct wage reduced to the
Federal minimum wage of $7.25, with
tip pooling adding to that wage and
bringing the total take-home to near or
above $20. However, even if the pooled
tips amounted to $15 per hour, the
minimum wage would prevent the
employer from reducing her direct wage
to $5. If pooled tips account for only $3
per hour on average, it is unlikely the
employer would be able to reduce her
hourly wage rate below $17, more than
twice as much as is allowed by law,
because of the market effects impacting
wages.
A number of commenters raised the
prospect that employers could use tip
pooling to ultimately transfer tips to
themselves by reducing the base wages
of back-of-the-house workers since those
workers would now be earning tips to
offset the wage reduction. However,
employers in states that permit tip
credits—which is a majority of states—
may already transfer to themselves up to
the full amount of the tip credit (up to
$5.12 per hour) directly from front-ofthe-house workers without first
initiating a system of tip pooling for
back-of-the-house workers by taking the
credit and paying those front-of-thehouse workers the lower direct cash
wage (at least $2.13 per hour).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
86777
The analysis assumes that employers
will institute nontraditional tip pools
with employees who do not customarily
and regularly receive tips only in
situations that are beneficial to them.
Accordingly, it assumes that employers
will include back-of-the-house
employees in their tip pools only if they
believe that they can do so without
losing their front-of-the-house staff and
without reducing the overall quality of
the customer experience. To attract and
retain the tipped workers that they
need, employers must pay these workers
as much as their ‘‘outside option,’’
which is the hourly earnings that they
could receive from another employer in
a non-tipped job with a similar skill
level requirement to their current
position. For each tipped worker, the
Department assumes a transfer could
occur only if their total earnings,
including tips, is greater than the
predicted outside-option wage from a
non-tipped job. While the Department
identified serious methodological faults
with a commenter’s outside option
analyses, which are discussed later in
this document, the approach comports
in principle to expected market
behavior, and therefore the Department
built an outside option calculation into
this analysis to frame the potential
upper bound of total transfers.
The transfer calculation herein
excludes workers who are paid a direct
cash wage below the full FLSA
minimum wage of $7.25, because under
the amended statute and the
Department’s rule, employers who take
a tip credit are still subject to section
3(m)(2)(A)’s restrictions on tip pools.
Some employers may begin paying their
tipped workers a direct cash wage of at
least the full FLSA minimum wage to
institute a tip pool with back-of-thehouse workers. The potential transfer
due to this scenario is not quantified
due to uncertainty regarding how many
employers would choose to no longer
use the tip credit. Choosing to no longer
take a tip credit would require a change
to employers’ payroll systems and
methods of compensation to which
employers and employees are
accustomed, and it would increase the
employers’ out of pocket payroll
expenses, both of which could
discourage employers from making this
change.
The transfer calculation also excludes
workers who are paid a direct cash wage
by their employers, exclusive of any tips
received, that exceeds the applicable
minimum wage (either the Federal or
applicable state minimum wage). The
Department assumes that because these
employers are already paying more than
required under applicable law for these
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
86778
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
workers, any reduction in compensation
would result in these workers leaving
that employment. These employees
would therefore not have their tips
redistributed through a nontraditional
tip pool.
The Department does not attempt to
definitively interpret individual states’
laws. However, some servers and
bartenders work in states that either
prohibit mandatory tip pooling or
impose stricter limits on who can
participate in a mandatory tip pool than
are in this rule,22 or in states in the
Tenth Circuit where, as a result of
Marlow, 861 F.3d at 1159, employers
that do not take a tip credit were already
permitted to institute nontraditional tip
pools at the time Congress amended the
FLSA. The transfer estimate excludes
tipped employees in these states whom
the changes in this rule may not affect.23
The Department first determined total
transfers for all servers and bartenders
using the method described above. The
Department then excluded workers
whom the changes would not affect due
to their respective state laws. Finally,
the Department further reduced the total
transfer amount to account for the
uncertain number of employers who are
expected to decline to change their tip
pooling practices because it will require
changes to practices to which employers
and employees are accustomed,
including payroll and recordkeeping
changes.
To compute potential tip transfers, the
Department used individual-level
microdata from the 2017 Current
Population Survey (CPS), a monthly
survey of about 60,000 households that
is jointly sponsored by the U.S. Census
Bureau and BLS. Households are
surveyed for four months, excluded
from the survey for eight months,
surveyed for an additional four months,
and then permanently dropped from the
sample. During the last month of each
rotation in the sample (month 4 and
month 16), employed respondents
complete a supplementary
questionnaire in addition to the regular
survey. These households and questions
form the CPS Merged Outgoing Rotation
Group (CPS–MORG) and give more
detailed information about those
surveyed.24 Because the CAA went into
effect in March 2018, the Department
used CPS data from 2017, the most
recent full year of data that predates the
CAA, to calculate the transfer. In this
analysis, 2017 wage data are inflated to
2019 dollars using the GDP deflator. For
purposes of rule familiarization costs,
the Department used the most recent
year of data (2019) to reflect employers
reading the rule after it is published.
The CPS asks respondents whether
they usually receive overtime pay, tips,
and commissions (OTTC), which allows
the Department to estimate the number
of bartenders and wait staff in
restaurants and drinking places who
receive tips.25 CPS data are not available
separately for overtime pay, tips, and
commissions, but the Department
assumes very few bartenders and wait
staff at restaurants and drinking places
receive commissions, and the number
who receive overtime pay but not tips
is also assumed to be minimal.26
Therefore, when bartenders and wait
staff responded affirmatively to this
question, the Department assumed that
they receive tips. Based on CPS data, the
Department identified 2,546
observations (unique data points),
which based on the survey’s
methodology represent 2.2 million
individuals, of respondents claiming to
fall in the two categories of Waiters and
Bartenders. The number of observations
decreases as the analysis refines the
universe of applicable employees.
All data tables in this analysis include
estimates for the year 2017 as the
baseline. To identify the relevant
population, the Department removed
from the analysis workers who do not
receive tips. Table 1 presents the
estimates of the share of bartenders and
wait staff in restaurants and drinking
places who reported that they usually
earned OTTC in 2017. Approximately
64 percent of bartenders and 55 percent
of wait staff reported usually earning
OTTC in 2017. These numbers include
workers in all states, including states
where the changes in this rule are
assumed not to affect. These numbers
also include workers who are paid a
direct cash wage below the full FLSA
minimum wage of $7.25 (that is,
employees whose employers are using a
tip credit). Both these populations are
excluded from the transfer calculation.
Only 56.5 percent of workers in these
occupations report earning tips, which
may be low and could result in an
underestimation of transfers. The
Department did not adjust for this
possibility because it lacked the data to
do so and also estimates there is
sufficient downward pressure on the
total transfer estimate due to other
factors that were not adjusted for.
Discussions of these can be found in
section V.B.ii (Estimated Transfers and
Outside-Option Wage Calculation).
TABLE 1—SHARE OF BARTENDERS AND WAITERS/WAITRESSES IN RESTAURANTS AND DRINKING PLACES WHO EARNED
OVERTIME PAY, TIPS, OR COMMISSIONS
Total workers
(millions)
Occupation
Total .............................................................................................................
Bartenders ...................................................................................................
22 See, e.g., Minn. Stat. sec. 177.24, subd. 3 (‘‘No
employer may require an employee to contribute or
share a gratuity received by the employee with the
employer or other employees or to contribute any
or all of the gratuity to a fund or pool operated for
the benefit of the employer or employees.’’); Mass.
Gen. Laws ch. 149, sec. 152A(c) (‘‘No employer or
person shall cause, require or permit any wait staff
employee, service employee, or service bartender to
participate in a tip pool through which such
employee remits any wage, tip or service charge, or
any portion thereof, for distribution to any person
who is not a wait staff employee, service employee,
or service bartender.’’)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
Workers
responding to
question on
OTTC
(millions)
2.21
0.34
23 Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware,
Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Utah, and Wyoming.
24 See Current Population Survey, U.S. Census
Bureau, https://www.census.gov/surveys/cps.html
(last visited Aug. 13, 2019); CPS Merged Outgoing
Rotation Groups, NBER, http://www.nber.org//.html
(last visited Aug. 13, 2019).
25 This question is asked only of hourly
employees and nonhourly workers are consequently
excluded from the transfer estimate. The
Department did not quantify transfers from
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1.92
0.27
Report earning OTTC
Workers
(millions)
1.08
0.17
Percent
56.5
63.5
nonhourly workers because without knowing the
prevalence of tipped income among nonhourly
workers, the Department cannot accurately estimate
potential transfers from these workers. However,
the Department believes the transfer from
nonhourly workers will be small because only 13
percent of wait staff and bartenders in restaurants
and drinking places are nonhourly workers, whom
the Department believes may have a lower
probability of receiving tips.
26 According to BLS Current Population Survey
data, in 2017, workers in service occupations
worked an average of 35 hours per week. See
https://www.bls.gov/cps/aa2017/cpsaat23.htm.
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
86779
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—SHARE OF BARTENDERS AND WAITERS/WAITRESSES IN RESTAURANTS AND DRINKING PLACES WHO EARNED
OVERTIME PAY, TIPS, OR COMMISSIONS—Continued
Workers
responding to
question on
OTTC
(millions)
Total workers
(millions)
Occupation
Waiters/Waitresses ......................................................................................
1.88
1.65
Report earning OTTC
Workers
(millions)
Percent
0.91
55.4
Source: CEPR, 2017 CPS–MORG.
Occupations: Bartenders (Census Code 4040) and Waiters and Waitresses (Census Code 4110).
Industries: Restaurants and other food services (Census Code 8680) and Drinking places, alcoholic beverages (Census Code 8690).
Of the 1.08 million bartenders and
wait staff who receive OTTC, only
688,000 reported the amount received in
OTTC. Therefore, the Department
imputed OTTC for those workers who
did not report the amount received in
OTTC. As shown in Table 2, 54 percent
of bartenders’ earnings (an average of
$281 per week) and 49 percent of
waiters’ and waitresses’ earnings (an
average of $238 per week) were from
overtime pay, tips, and commissions in
2017. For workers who reported
receiving tips but did not report the
amount, the ratio of OTTC to total
earnings for the sample who reported
their OTTC amounts (54 or 49 percent)
was applied to their weekly total
income to estimate weekly tips.
Nonhourly workers, who are not asked
the question on receipt of OTTC, are
assumed to not be tipped employees.
TABLE 2—PORTION OF INCOME FROM OVERTIME PAY, TIPS, AND COMMISSIONS FOR BARTENDERS AND WAITERS/
WAITRESSES IN RESTAURANTS AND DRINKING PLACES
Those who report the amount earned in OTTC
Occupation
Workers
Total ...........................................................................................................
Bartenders .................................................................................................
Waiters/Waitresses ....................................................................................
Average weekly
earnings
688,171
105,787
582,384
$486.95
521.51
480.67
Average
weekly
OTTC
Percent of
earnings
attributable
to OTTC
$244.48
280.61
237.91
50
54
49
Source: CEPR, 2017 CPS–MORG, inflated to $2019 using the GDP deflator.
Occupations: Bartenders (Census Code 4040) and Waiters and Waitresses (Census Code 4110).
Industries: Restaurants and other food services (Census Code 8680) and Drinking places, alcoholic beverages (Census Code 8690).
1. Outside-Option Wage Calculation
As discussed above, to determine
potential transfers of tips, the
Department assumes that employers
will redistribute tips from tipped
employees to employees who are not
customarily and regularly tipped in a
nontraditional tip pool only if the
tipped employee’s total earnings,
including the tips the employee retains,
are greater than the ‘‘outside-option
wage’’ that the tipped employee could
earn in a non-tipped job. To model a
worker’s outside-option wage, the
Department used quantile regression
analysis to attempt to predict the wage
that these workers would earn in a nontipped job. Hourly wage was regressed
on age, age squared, age cubed,
education, gender, race, ethnicity,
citizenship, marital status, veteran
status, metro area status, and state for a
sample of non-tipped workers.27 The
Department restricted the regression
27 For workers who had missing values for one or
more of these explanatory variables we imputed the
missing value as the average value for tipped/nontipped workers.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
sample to workers earning at least the
Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per
hour (inclusive of OTTC), and those
who are employed. This analysis
excludes states where the law prohibits
non-tipped back-of-the-house
employees from being included in the
tip pool and states governed by the
Marlow decision.
In calculating the outside-option wage
for tipped workers, the Department
developed a model that defined the
comparator sample for tipped workers
in two different ways: (1) All non-tipped
workers (i.e., workers who are either not
waiters, waitresses, or bartenders, or do
not work in restaurants or drinking
places), and (2) Non-tipped workers in
a set of occupations that are likely to
represent outside options. The
Department selected the list of relevant
occupations by exploring the similarity
between the knowledge, activities,
skills, and abilities required by the
occupation to that of servers and
bartenders. The Department searched
the Occupational Information Network
(O*NET) system for occupations that
share important similarities with
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
waiters and waitresses and bartenders—
the occupations had to require
‘‘customer and personal service’’
knowledge and ‘‘service orientation’’
skills.28 The list was further reduced by
eliminating occupations that are not
comparable to the waitress and
bartender occupations in terms of
education and training, as waiter and
waitress and bartender occupations do
not require formal education or
28 For a full list of all occupations on O*NET, see
https://www.onetcenter.org/taxonomy/2010/
updated.html.
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
86780
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
training.29 See Appendix Table 1 for a
list of these occupations.30
The transfer estimates presented in
this analysis use this sample of limited
occupations to predict each tipped
worker’s outside-option wage, that is,
the wage that the tipped worker could
earn in a non-tipped job. The
Department also ran the regression to
predict the outside-option wage using
all non-tipped workers as the outsideoption sample, and found that transfers
are approximately 30 percent lower in
that specification. This implies that the
resulting transfer estimate is likely a
significant overestimate.
The regression calculates a
distribution of outside-option wages for
each worker. The Department
considered two methods: (1) Using the
50th percentile and (2) using the same
percentile for each worker as they
currently earn in the distribution of
wages for wait staff and bartenders in
restaurants and drinking places in the
state where they live.31 The second
method accounts for the fact that two
workers may have the exact same
characteristics (age, race, education,
etc.), but one worker may have a higher
or lower outside-option wage because
he or she is a more or less effective
employee. This method assumes that a
worker’s position in the wage
distribution for wait staff and bartenders
in restaurants and drinking places
reflects his or her position in the wage
distribution for the outside-option
occupations. The Department believes
29 Approximately 14 percent of waiters and
waitresses and 16 percent of bartenders have
college degrees, even though a degree is not
generally required to obtain such positions.
According to research, the degree itself may carry
an earnings premium for these workers. Therefore,
excluding outside option occupations based on
education attainment inflates the transfer estimates
produced from this analysis because it compares
these workers to artificially suppressed wage
alternatives (e.g., only those positions for which at
least this 14 percent of servers would be overqualified). However, since in most cases servers and
bartenders are not required to have degrees, and it
is unclear the degree to which including additional
occupations in the outside option pool may skew
the results, the Department opted to exclude these
comparator occupations and simply highlight this
fact here. BLS data on the share of workers with
bachelor’s degrees working in jobs that only require
a high school diploma are presented in a study by
Vedder, R., Denhart, C., and Robe, J. (2013),
available here: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED539373.
30 The Appendix and data tables are included in
the rulemaking docket at www.regulations.gov.
31 Because of the uncertainty in the estimate of
the percentile ranking of the worker’s current wage,
the Department used the midpoint percentile for
workers in each decile. For example, workers
whose current wage was estimated to be in the zero
to tenth percentile range were assigned the
predicted fifth percentile outside-option wage,
those with wages estimated to be in the eleventh to
twentieth percentile were assigned the predicted
fifteenth percentile outside-option wage, etc.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
this method is more appropriate than
the 50th percentile method.32
To calculate the outside option wage,
the Department first calculated the
hourly wage decile (including tips) for
each of the tipped workers identified
above (i.e., in a tipped occupation/
industry and report earning OTTC),
relative to other tipped workers.33
Second, the Department ran quantile
regressions of the hourly wages of
workers in non-tipped occupations that
are similar to the tipped workers’
occupations (Appendix Table 1). The
regressions controlled for state dummy
variables, education level, sex, age, race,
citizenship status, marital status,
veteran status, and metropolitan area
status. Workers reporting an hourly
wage with overtime, tips, and
commissions of less than $7.25 were
excluded from this analysis.34 The
regression results are included in
Appendix A. Third, based on the
regression estimates, the Department
calculated a predicted wage in a nontipped occupation for each worker in a
tipped occupation, for each of the ten
deciles. The Department then used the
predicted wage from the decile
regression applicable to each tipped
worker (i.e., based on his or her wage
percentile) as his or her outside wage.
Lastly, for the workers in tipped
occupations, the Department removed
some that did not have applicable data,
including workers as follows:
• Without wage data,
• with negative or zero tips (after
removing overtime pay),
• with hourly wages including tips
less than or equal to than their outside
option wage, and
• with hourly wages including tips
less than the state minimum wage.
After making these exclusions, the
analysis includes 237 observations.35
Upon adjusting the universe of
observations for employees who report
earning tips, residing in states that may
be impacted by this rule, individuals
32 The 50th percentile method results in a higher
transfer estimate ($176 million, compared to $109
million).
33 All workers in tipped occupations/industries
earning at least $7.25/hour when including tips
were broken into deciles. This sample included
about 1,500 observations (representing
approximately 1.3 million workers) in the nonexcluded states.
34 The quantile regressions using non-tipped
workers in comparable occupations included
21,086 observations.
35 Based on the original CPS methodology, these
observations were calculated to represent 205,170
individuals. Due to the subsequent calculations
conducted in this analysis, the Department remains
confident in its findings but recognizes
methodological constraints may impact the ability
to extrapolate the findings across the originally
representative universe with as much accuracy.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reporting wages lower than the
applicable minimum wage, and those
reporting wages higher than the
minimum wage, only 37 observations
remain, representing 24,743 workers.36
The Department does not know the
degree to which the reduced sample size
may impact the findings of its analysis.
Nonetheless, the Department remains
confident that the outside option
calculation is of sufficient merit to
retain it in the analysis, insofar as it is
instructive in setting an approximate
upper bound for the potential total
transfers due to tip pooling.
The Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI),
in their comment, asserted that the
assumptions used to calculate the
Department’s outside option were
flawed because they do not account for
the search and travel costs that an
employee would incur when deciding to
change jobs. According to IPI, this
caused the Department to overestimate
the value of the outside-option wage for
affected workers, leading to an
underestimate in the overall size of the
transfer. The Department acknowledges
that search and travel costs are part of
an employee’s decision to leave his or
her current job, but believes these costs
to be relatively minimal (due to being
time-limited) and highly variable from
employee to employee and location to
location. The Department does not have
data to estimate these and other highly
individualized costs employees might
face in considering their outside option
nor does the commenter provide or
address them. Instead, the Department’s
outside option regression controls for
location and other factors that may
relate to differences in these costs.
2. Per Worker Transfer Calculation
After determining each tipped
worker’s outside-option wage, the
Department calculated the potential
transferrable tips as the lesser of the
following four numbers:
A. The positive differential between a
worker’s current earnings (wage plus
tips) and his or her predicted outsideoption wage,
B. The positive differential between a
worker’s current earnings and the state
minimum wage,
C. The total tips earned by the worker,
or
D. Zero if the worker currently earns
a direct cash wage above the full
applicable minimum wage.
The second number is included for
cases where the outside-option wage
predicted by the analysis is below the
36 The same constraints apply to this
extrapolation as described in the previous footnote,
to an even greater degree.
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
state minimum wage, because the
worker will not earn less than his or her
applicable state minimum wage. The
third number is included because the
maximum potential tips that can be
transferred from an employee cannot be
greater than his or her total tips. Total
tips for each worker were calculated
from the OTTC variable in the CPS data.
For hourly-paid workers, the
Department subtracted predicted
overtime pay to better estimate total
tips.37 For workers who reported
receiving overtime, tips, and
commissions, but did not report the
amount they earned, the Department
applied the ratio of tipped earnings to
total earnings for all waiters and
waitresses and bartenders in their state
(see Table 2).
The Department set the transfer to
zero if the worker currently earns a
direct cash wage above the full
applicable minimum wage. If the
employer is paying a tipped employee a
direct cash wage above the required full
minimum wage, this indicates the wage
is set at the market clearing wage and
any reduction in the wage (e.g., by
requiring tips to be transferred to backof-the-house workers) would cause the
employee to quit and look for other
work commensurate with the value they
provide. Therefore, where an employer
is paying a tipped employee above the
full applicable minimum wage, the
Department assumes the employer
would generally not require the
employee to contribute tips to a
nontraditional tip pool.
The Department includes an example
to demonstrate how the outside option
and the hourly transfers are calculated.
Suppose a worker, with tips, earns
$16.82 per hour. She earns a direct cash
wage of $8.33 per hour, which is the
relevant state minimum wage (both
values adjusted to 2019 dollars using
the GDP deflator), and $8.49 per hour in
tips. The outside option wage for her
wage decile is $15.44. We then calculate
the following values:
• Hourly wage ($16.82) minus state
minimum wage ($8.33): $8.49
• hourly wage ($16.82) minus outside
option wage ($15.44): $1.38
• hourly tips ($16.82 minus $8.33):
$8.49
The lesser of these three numbers is
$1.38 per hour; therefore, hourly
transfers are determined to be $1.38.
One notable constraint to this
methodology is that it does not account
for variations in total number of hours
worked or the number of weeks worked
overtime pay is calculated as (1.5 ×
base wage) × weekly hours worked over 40.
37 Predicted
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
per year, which have a direct impact on
compensation.38 If the averages of usual
hours differ between a restaurant service
job and an outside option, not adjusting
the resultant figures accordingly could
present a transfer estimate above or
below reality. For example, a bartender
working 4 hours per night and 5 days
per week might make $30 per hour, but
work only 20 hours per week (earning
$600 per week). Comparing that wage to
her outside option wage, set at $20 per
hour but with 40 hours per week, would
result in a $10 per hour loss, totaling
$200 per week. Yet in reality she would
earn more in the outside option role
than in the original restaurant service
role ($800 total, or $200 more), and the
transfer calculation could be drastically
overestimated. Conversely, the outside
option transfer calculation would be
underestimated if the same bartender
works five 12-hour shifts at the same
wage rate. The Department recognizes
this as a constraint to its approach. It
nonetheless maintains that the resultant
transfer estimate is instructive.
3. Total Annual Transfer
Next, the Department estimates total
weekly transfers. Estimated per worker
hourly transfers were multiplied by
usual hours to estimate weekly transfers
per worker (on average $192.40 per
week). Estimated weekly transfers were
then aggregated over the relevant
population (24,743 workers, based on
the 37 CPS observations in the refined
employee universe).
To determine the potential annual
total tip transfer, the Department first
multiplied the estimated weighted sum
of weekly tip transfers for all wait staff
and bartenders who work at full-service
restaurants and bars in the United States
by 45.2 weeks—the average weeks
worked in a year for waiters and
waitresses and bartenders in the 2017
CPS Annual Social and Economic
Supplement. Using this methodology,
the maximum possible transfer from
front-of-the-house employees is
estimated not to exceed $217.2 million
(24,743 workers × $194.20 per week ×
45.2 weeks).39 This represents the total
38 On average, from the dataset employed for the
regression analysis, the tipped workers included in
the outside option calculation usually work 14
percent fewer hours per week than the non-tipped
workers included in the regression (30 hours versus
35 hours).
39 An additional source of uncertainty with regard
to the magnitude of the estimated transfers is due
to sampling error, the use of sample data to make
inferences about the population. The estimated
standard error on the point estimate of total
potential tip transfers per year is large. The 95
percent confidence interval around this estimate is
$128.6 million to $305.3 million, a 41 percent
swing either higher or lower than the provided
estimate. Additionally, this confidence interval
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
86781
transfers that the Department estimates
would occur in the extremely unlikely
situation where every employer that
does not take a tip credit institutes tip
pools that include back-of-the-house
workers and where none of the front-ofthe-house workers see an increase in
total tips. In reality, even when it is
seemingly economically beneficial
when considering the wage dimension,
many employers may not change their
tip pooling practices because it would
require changes to current practices to
which they and their employees are
accustomed, including their payroll and
recordkeeping systems.
The Department was unable to
determine what proportion of the total
tips estimated to be potentially
transferred from these workers will
realistically be transferred. For a range
of reasons presented in this analysis, the
Department expects that the potential
transfers fall significantly below the
above-calculated $217.2 million, and
therefore considered the midpoint
between this amount and zero to be a
reasonable estimate of the potential
transfers. The Department accordingly
estimates that transfers of tips from
front-of-the-house workers will be $109
million in the first year that this rule is
effective. Assuming these transfers
occur annually, and there is no real
wage growth, this results in 10-year
annualized transfers of $109 million at
both the 3 percent and 7 percent
discount rates. These transfers, in and of
themselves, could have benefits which
are discussed further below.
The $217 million transfer amount
could also be an overestimation because
employers do not have perfect
information about employees’ outside
option wages. Employers could decide
not to implement a nontraditional tip
pool in order to ensure that they do not
lose any of their front-of-the-house
workers.
The earnings reduction for front-ofhouse workers could also be reduced if
instituting a nontraditional tip pool
leads to increased cooperation and
productivity among workers, which the
Department expects will occur. This, in
turn, could lead to better service for
customers, and higher tip amounts.
Such effects would be categorized as
benefits of the rule, rather than
transfers, so please see section V.B.iii.3.
for further discussion of these potential
benefits.
As noted above, the Department
acknowledges that it is possible some
employers might choose to respond to
itself is too narrow due to the inability to take into
account the stratified sampling design of the CPS,
which means the spread is likely larger.
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
86782
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
the rule by decreasing back-of-the-house
workers’ wages, as the rule will allow
these employees’ wages to be
supplemented with tips, and such an
outcome is what is modeled to produce
the $109 million estimate of transfers
from front-of-house employees to
employers. (The Department notes that,
because employers cannot take a tip
credit for employees in nontraditional
tip pools, an employer who institutes
such a program would be precluded
from taking a tip credit for their frontof-the-house workers and would have to
pay those workers at least the full
minimum wage.)
Furthermore, although some
employers may consider implementing
a tip pooling system that substitutes
back-of-the-house workers’ hourly
wages for tips, tips fluctuate at any
given time. Thus, employers’ ability to
do so would be limited by market
forces, such as, potentially, workers’
aversion to risk and the endowment
effect (workers potentially valuing their
set wages more than tips of the same
average amount). Furthermore, the
minimum wage limits an employer’s
ability to decrease back-of-the-house
wages. In the NPRM, the Department
stated that it lacked data to quantify the
extent to which this will occur, and this
remains true. The Department requested
information during the comment period
on this point and received no applicable
data.
In its comment, IPI asserted that the
Department’s transfer calculation
wrongly assumes the restaurant industry
is perfectly competitive. According to
IPI’s comment, the assumption of
perfect competition underestimates the
degree to which employers will be able
to transfer wages from employees and
understates the total volume of
transfers. The Department acknowledges
that, the less competitive the labor
market, the greater the ability of
employers to reduce worker wages to an
amount near the minimum wage.40
However, the Department does not have
sufficient information to estimate the
magnitude of this effect beyond the
controls it already applied in its
outside-options regression, and
maintains that existing data on average
wages indicate that employers face
constraints consistent with market
competition.
Some commenters asserted that the
Department failed to provide a
quantitative analysis of the potential
transfer between employees and
40 The Department further notes, however, that
even a worker who receives minimum wage and
also participates in the tip pool will in every
conceivable scenario make more than a worker
whose sole compensation is the minimum wage.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
employers. For example, IPI suggested
that, ‘‘DOL could, using its already
stated assumptions, isolate the subset of
employers that would be able to capture
the transfer. The Department could then
construct a range of values for that
subset using the same data sources and
methods used to construct the overall
transfer estimate.’’ The Department
acknowledges that employers could
ultimately capture some transfers, as
stated above. Employers would be more
able to lower the base wages of back-ofthe-house employees, and therefore
capture the transfer, over a longer time
horizon. It is unlikely that they could
immediately lower wages of existing
employees. Importantly, by instituting a
nontraditional tip pool, employers
would disqualify themselves from
taking a tip credit for front-of-the-house
workers, which is already permitted by
law. Moreover, it is probably less
complex and more direct for employers
to continue such established
arrangements than it is to set up a new
nontraditional tip pool to reduce overall
employee wages, if that is their
objective.
Finally, even if employers are able to
lower the base wages of back-of-thehouse employees, it is possible that they
would reinvest these wage savings back
into the business, or use it to generate
additional efficiencies. This, in turn,
could lead to improvements in the
overall customer experience, which
could lead to customers leaving higher
tips. This increase in tips would
ultimately benefit all employees in the
tip pool.
Employers face a strong incentive to
take action that will boost productivity
and maximize long-term profits. The
Department did not attempt to account
for this point in the outside option
analysis, but nonetheless holds that
employers face real incentives. All of
the employers in the population sample
used for the regression analysis are
eligible to take a tip credit, and therefore
already have means by which to transfer
tips to themselves via reduced wait staff
wages if that were their goal. Thus, the
employers who decide to implement tip
pooling will likely do so because they
believe it will boost productivity and
profits. If employees have the incentive
for greater cooperation because they all
share in the tip pool, it is quite possible
the quality of service will increase and
result in a higher absolute value of tips
in the pool. Consider a cook who,
motivated by his participation in a tip
pool, walks past a table and decides to
stop and chat for a minute to ask about
how the patrons are enjoying the food—
this would likely be well received and
may very well result in higher tips in
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the pool, in which the cook would now
be eligible to partake. Conceivably, such
quality and efficiency improvements
could result in back-of-the-house and
front-of-the-house workers all receiving
higher tipped wages.
One commenter, IPI, said that the
Department should consider social costs
and transfers when promulgating this
rule, such as an increase in reliance on
public benefits and adverse health
consequences. If total compensation
were reduced and if that reduction
caused individual workers to rely on
public benefits, then the transfers
described as being borne by front-ofhouse workers would instead be
partially borne by the Federal, state, or
local government funding the benefits
program. However, such an outcome is
uncertain, and an attempted analysis of
it would be characterized by lack of
data. The Department notes that these
same or newly hired workers may
receive more compensation due to the
rule and thus there could be a reduction
in any reliance they presently have on
social welfare benefits.
iii. Estimated Costs, Cost Savings, and
Benefits
In this subsection, the Department
addresses costs attributable to the rule,
by quantifying regulatory familiarization
costs and qualitatively discussing
additional recordkeeping costs. The
Department qualitatively discusses
benefits and cost savings associated
with the rule. Lastly, the Department
qualitatively discusses the potential
costs, transfers, and benefits associated
with the revisions to § 531.56(e).
1. Regulatory Familiarization Costs
Regulatory familiarization costs
represent direct costs to businesses
associated with reviewing the new
regulation. It is not clear whether
regulatory familiarization costs are a
function of the number of
establishments or the number of firms.41
Presumably, the headquarters of a firm
will conduct the regulatory review for
businesses with multiple restaurants,
and may also require chain restaurants
to familiarize themselves with the
regulation at the establishment level. To
41 An establishment is commonly understood as
a single economic unit, such as a farm, a mine, a
factory, or a store, that produces goods or services.
Establishments are typically at one physical
location and engaged in one, or predominantly one,
type of economic activity for which a single
industrial classification may be applied. An
establishment is in contrast to a firm, or a company,
which is a business and may consist of one or more
establishments, where each establishment may
participate in a different predominant economic
activity. See BLS, ‘‘Quarterly Census of
Employment and Wages: Concepts,’’ https://
www.bls.gov/opub/hom/cew/concepts.htm.
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
reduce the chance of underestimating
costs, the Department used the number
of establishments in its cost estimate—
which is larger than the number of
firms—and assumes that regulatory
familiarization occurs at both the
headquarters and establishment levels.
The Department assumes that all
establishments will incur some
regulatory familiarization costs
regardless of whether the employer
decides to change its tip pooling
practices as a result of the rule.42 There
may be differences in familiarization
cost by the size of establishments;
however, our analysis does not compute
different costs for establishments of
different sizes. To estimate the total
regulatory familiarization costs, the
Department used (1) the number of
establishments in the two industries,
Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages)
86783
and Full-Service Restaurants; (2) the
wage rate for the employees reviewing
the rule; and (3) the number of hours
that it estimates employers will spend
reviewing the rule. Table 3 shows the
number of establishments in the two
industries. To estimate the number of
potentially affected establishments, the
Department used data from BLS’s
Quarterly Census of Employment and
Wages (QCEW) for 2019.
TABLE 3—NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS WITH TIPPED WORKERS
Industry
Establishments
NAICS 722410 (Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages)) ................................................................................................................
NAICS 722511 (Full-service Restaurants) ......................................................................................................................................
42,912
250,056
Total ..........................................................................................................................................................................................
292,968
Source: QCEW, 2019.
The Department assumes that a
Compensation, Benefits, and Job
Analysis Specialist (SOC 13–1141) (or a
staff member in a similar position) with
a mean wage of $33.58 per hour in 2019
will review the rule.43 Given the change
in this rule, the Department assumes
that it will take on average about 15
minutes to review the final rule. The
Department has selected a small time
estimate because it is an average for
both establishments making changes to
their compensation structure and those
who are not (and consequently will
have negligible or no regulatory
familiarization costs). Further, the
change effected by this regulation is
unlikely to cause major burdens or
costs. Assuming benefits are paid at a
rate of 46 percent of the base wage, and
overhead costs are 17 percent of the
base wage, the reviewer’s effective
hourly rate is $54.74; thus, the average
cost per establishment is $13.68 for 15
minutes of review time. The number of
establishments in the selected industries
was 292,968 in 2019. Therefore,
regulatory familiarization costs in Year
1 are estimated to be $4.01 million
($13.68 × 292,968 establishments),
which amounts to a 10-year annualized
cost of $469,902 at a discount rate of 3
percent or $570,700 at a discount rate of
7 percent. Regulatory familiarization
costs in future years are assumed to be
de minimis.
2. Other Costs
The Department also assumes that
there will be a minimal increase in
recordkeeping costs associated with this
42 This includes establishments in states excluded
from the transfer calculation.
43 A Compensation/Benefits Specialist ensures
company compliance with Federal and state laws,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
rule. Under the Department’s previous
regulations, employers were only
required to keep records of which
employees receive tips, the hours those
employees worked, and how much each
employee receives if the employer takes
a tip credit. Some employers also kept
records of the time employees spent on
tipped duties and non-tipped duties to
demonstrate compliance with the
Department’s 80/20 approach to
enforcing the dual-jobs regulation.
Under this rule, employers that do not
take a tip credit but collect tips to
institute a mandatory tip pool must
keep records showing which employees
are included in the tip pool, and the
amount of tips they receive, as reported
by employees to the employer. As those
records are already required under IRS
Form 4070, there will be minimal
additional recordkeeping costs for
employers that pay the full Federal
minimum wage in direct cash wages
and choose to institute a nontraditional
tip pool.
Employers may incur some training
costs associated with familiarizing first
line managers and staff with the rule;
however, the Department believes these
costs will be de minimis.
3. Benefits
In their comment, IPI stated that the
Department should better support its
assertions regarding the proposed rule’s
benefits. In response, the Department
has further elaborated on the benefits
discussed in this section.
Section 3(m)’s tip credit language
allows an employer to meet a portion of
including reporting requirements; evaluates job
positions, determining classification, exempt or
non-exempt status, and salary; plans, develops,
evaluates, improves, and communicates methods
and techniques for selecting, promoting,
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
its Federal minimum wage obligation
from the tips customers give employees.
If an employer takes a tip credit, section
3(m)(2)(A) applies, along with its
requirement that only employees who
customarily and regularly receive tips
be included in any mandatory tip pool.
When an employer does not take a tip
credit, however, the rule would allow
the employer to act in a manner
currently prohibited by regulation—that
is, by distributing tips to employees
who are employed in occupations in
which they do not customarily and
regularly receive tips (e.g., cooks or
dishwashers) through a tip pool. The
rule, therefore, gives employers greater
flexibility in determining their pay
policies for tipped and non-tipped
workers. Allowing employers and
employees to structure tip pools in a
manner that fits the needs of their
business will improve efficiency and
enhance cooperation amongst
employees. By creating an atmosphere
of cooperation, diminishing incentives
for employees to unduly compete
amongst themselves, and allowing
workers at all levels to profit directly
from quality service, employers with
nontraditional tip pools may realize
efficiencies and take on more business
and more tips. This could cause an
overall increase in business,
employment, tips, and wages for all
workers, not to mention increased job
security and job satisfaction.
The Department conducted a
literature review of relevant academic
studies that address the nexus of service
quality and remuneration. One analysis
compensating, evaluating, and training workers. See
BLS, ‘‘13–1141 Compensation, Benefits, and Job
Analysis Specialists,’’ https://www.bls.gov/oescurrent-oes131141.htm (last visited July 27, 2020).
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
86784
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
has suggested that tip pooling promotes
and rewards cooperation among
employees as serving customers is often
a cooperative endeavor among frontand back-of-the-house employees; this
study further suggests that tip pooling
leads to uniformly better service, which
in turn, leads to increased patronage
and increased tipping.44 Another study
indicates that tip pooling may foster
customer-focused service, promote
employee camaraderie, and increase
productivity.45 Additionally, under the
changes in this rule and per the transfer
analysis discussed above, the employer
will be able to distribute customer tips
to back-of-the-house employees like
cooks and dishwashers, possibly
resulting in increased earnings for those
employees. This would allow employers
to hire more or higher quality workers
for those roles. Finally, the Department
believes that allowing employers to
expand tip pools beyond customarily
and regularly tipped workers like
servers and bartenders could help
incentivize back-of-the-house workers to
perform better, which may improve the
customer’s experience.
As noted above, Estreicher and Nash
(2018) assert that tip pooling leads to
uniformly better service, which in turn,
leads to increased tipping.46 The
potential for increased tipping deserves
some additional consideration.
Theoretically, if the tip pool amount
increases due to improved service, then
the possible reduction in earnings noted
in the transfer analysis for front-of-thehouse workers could be overestimated.
The Department conducted a literature
review of both (1) the direct relationship
between tip pooling and tips and (2) the
indirect relationship between dining
experience and tips received. The
Department did not identify studies that
show a direct empirical relationship
between tip pooling and tip levels,
although studies such as Estreicher and
Nash (2018) present related findings.
There is some literature on the
relationship between dining quality
(e.g., service quality, food quality) and
tip amounts. However, much of this
literature is based on relatively small,
locality-specific, non-representative
44 Samuel
Estreicher & Jonathan R. Nash, The
Case for Tipping and Unrestricted Tip-Pooling:
Promoting Intrafirm Cooperation, 59 B.C.L. Rev. 1
(2018), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/
vol59/iss1/2.
45 Ofer H. Azar, The Implications of Tipping for
Economics and Management, 30 (10) Int’l J. Soc.
Econ., 1084–94 (2003), http://
individual.utoronto.ca/diep/c/azar2003.pdf.
46 Samuel Estreicher & Jonathan R. Nash, The
Case for Tipping and Unrestricted Tip-Pooling:
Promoting Intrafirm Cooperation, 59 B.C.L. Rev. 1
(2018), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/
vol59/iss1/2.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
samples. That does not mean their
findings are inaccurate, but tempers the
Department’s interest in extrapolating
the findings across the U.S. economy.
Several particularly applicable papers
are briefly described here. The key
takeaway is the relationship between
dining quality and tip amount varies, so,
despite having relative confidence in
the direction of the impact (i.e.,
improved quality leads to higher tips),
the amount non-traditional tip pooling
may impact tips is unknown.
The literature generally found a
positive but small to moderate impact of
quality of service on tips. The following
are examples:
• Conlin, Lynn, and O’Donoghue
(2003) find that a one-point increase in
service quality (on scale from 1 to 5)
increases tip percent by either 1.43 or
1.464 percentage points (depending on
the model, both statistically
significant).47 The average tip percent is
17.56 percent so this is approximately
an 8 percent increase. A one-point
increase in food quality (which may
improve after implementation of a nontraditional tip pool) increased the tip
percent by either 0.585 or 1.481
percentage points (depending on the
model; only the latter is statistically
significant).
• Lynn (2003) finds that service
ratings explained an average of less than
two percent of the variation in a
restaurant’s tip percentages.48 Although
the paper cites empirical findings of
increases in tips for servers who take
certain actions (e.g., smiling, writing
‘‘thank you’’ on check, drawing a
picture such as a smiley face on check),
actions taken by back-of-the-house
workers may also increase tips.
• Bodvarsson and Gibson (1997)
estimated that within the seven central
Minnesota restaurants in their survey, a
one unit increase in service quality (on
a scale of 1–5) was associated with
slightly higher tips (0.44 to 0.54 percent
of the bill or $0.14 on average).49
• Whaley, Kim, and Kim (2019) find
that tipping size is positively related to
server quality, food quality, and
ambiance (although indirectly and occur
47 Conlin, M., Lynn, M., and O’Donoghue, T.
(2003). The Norm of Restaurant Tipping. Retrieved
October 16, 2020 from Cornell University, School
of Hospitality Administration site: http://
scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/articles/133.
48 Lynn, M. (2003). Tip Levels and Service: An
Update, Extension, and Reconciliation. Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly.
October–December.
49 Bodvarsson, B. and Gibson, W.A. (1997).
Economics and Restaurant Gratuities: Determining
Tip Rates. The American Journal of Economics and
Sociology, 56(2): 187–203, https://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.15367150.1997.tb03460.x.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
through an intermediary variable of
customer value).50 However, the
magnitudes of these impacts on tips are
relatively small.
4. Cost Savings
The cost savings associated with this
rule would result in part from the
increased earnings for back-of-the-house
employees. Higher earnings for these
employees could result in reduced
turnover, which reduces hiring and
training costs for employers. This rule
will also give employers greater
flexibility for tip pooling, and could
reduce effort spent ensuring that the tip
pool is limited to only customarily and
regularly tipped employees. The
Department believes that the cost
savings would outweigh any increased
rule-familiarization and recordkeeping
costs.
This rule may also reduce deadweight
loss. Deadweight loss is the loss of
economic efficiency that occurs when
the perfectly competitive equilibrium in
a market for a good or service is not
achieved. Minimum wages may prevent
the market from reaching equilibrium
and thus result in fewer hours worked
than would otherwise be efficient.
Allowing nontraditional tip pools may
cause a shift in the labor demand or
supply curves for wait staff and
bartenders. This could result in the
market moving closer to the competitive
market equilibrium. Although
deadweight loss reductions are most
commonly thought about in quantitative
terms, such as new hiring or expanded
hours for existing workers, quality could
be how it manifests itself; in this case,
deadweight loss reduction would be
another term for some of the same
benefits discussed elsewhere in this
regulatory impact analysis.
The Department did not quantify the
potential reduction in deadweight loss
because of uncertainty (e.g., what the
appropriate demand and supply
elasticities may be).
5. Costs, Benefits, and Potential
Transfers Associated With Revision to
Dual Jobs Regulation
The Department is amending its dual
jobs regulation to reflect its recent
guidance replacing the 80/20 approach
with the updated related duties test.
In the NPRM, the Department stated
the removal of the arbitrary 20 percent
cap on tasks that are not directly tied to
receipt of a tip may result in tipped
workers such as wait staff and
50 Whaley, J., Kim, S., and Kim, Y. (2019). Drivers
and Impact of Restaurant Tipping Behavior, Journal
of Foodservice Business Research, 22:2, 117–131,
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/
15378020.2019.1570773.
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
bartenders performing more non-tipped
related duties such as ‘‘cleaning and
setting tables, toasting bread, making
coffee, and occasionally washing dishes
or glasses.’’ Consequently, employment
of workers currently performing these
duties, such as dishwashers and cooks,
may fall on the margin. In addition, the
Department acknowledged that one
possibility from taking on related, nontipped duties would be that tipped
workers might lose tipped income by
spending more of their time performing
duties where they are not earning tips,
while still receiving cash wages of less
than minimum wage (total
compensation would nonetheless
remain at or above the minimum wage).
However, the Department did not
suggest that this was the only possible
outcome; another distinct possibility,
for instance, is that these ‘‘non-tipped’’
activities could result in greater overall
tips for the worker.51
The Department stated that it lacked
the data to quantify any potential
reduction in tips or employment,
because data does not exist on the
amount of time that tipped employees
currently spend on tipped duties or
related, non-tipped duties.52 Several
commenters criticized the Department’s
lack of a quantitative analysis, but did
not themselves provide data on the
amount of time that tipped employees
currently spend on tipped or related,
tipped duties. See, e.g., NELP, NELA;
State Attorneys General; National
Women’s Law Center; Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), in
particular, asserted that the removal of
the 20 percent cap on related duties
could cost workers millions each year.
In its comment, EPI cited to a blog post
where it had published an analysis
51 For example, if cleaning and setting tables
helps a restaurant turn over tables more quickly and
the server is able to wait on one additional party
at each table during a shift, the ‘‘non-tipped’’ work
may, in fact, result in an increase in the total tip
and total compensation that the employee receives
for a shift.
52 Note that the Department quantified a potential
transfer in the tip pooling portion of this analysis,
unlike the impacts due to the related duties test,
because the Department has greater confidence in
the ability to model a simpler system (i.e., interplay
between the minimum wages with and without a
tip credit, for front-of-the-house workers) than the
complexities of the related duties system (e.g.,
ambiguous baseline, competing incentives of
market actors, uncertain magnitudes of changes,
etc.). It is consistent for the Department to not
attempt to quantify impacts for a portion of the
regulation for which it has less confidence in
accurately estimating the input variables for a more
dynamic interplay of factors. The Department
requested comments and data to inform these
approaches, and while it received a number of
comments, none of them provided data or sufficient
methodological parameters to increase the
Department’s confidence in a quantitative analysis.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
claiming, ‘‘the proposed rule would cost
workers more than $700 million
annually if finalized.’’ 53 EPI argued that
employers will ‘‘exploit’’ this new
regulation by shifting non-tipped work
from traditionally non-tipped to tipped
staff, paying an hourly rate less than the
full minimum wage for that work, and
then applying a tip credit from tips
received by the tipped staff for tipped
work. The blog post estimates the
change in total earnings that could
occur if this shift took place. The
Department carefully considered EPI’s
blog analysis, but concluded that flaws
in EPI’s premise and methodology
render the analysis an inadequate
estimate of any potential transfer.54
The Department conducted additional
sensitivity analyses of the outsideoptions estimate conducted in the tip
pooling section. For example, two
variations were evaluated that more
closely align with the EPI’s outside
option wage regression used to estimate
the impacts of the 80/20 provision.
When EPI’s linear regression model is
used instead of a quartile regression,
estimated transfers are approximately 42
percent higher, but this analysis did not
include control variables, which the
Department believes would better
analyze whether location is simply
being captured by the transfer
calculation rather than regional
variability. The Department believes a
quantile regression is more appropriate
because it compares more similar
workers. In addition, EPI did not
include veteran status and metro status
as control variables in the regression;
when these are removed from the
Department’s model, the results are
essentially unchanged. Furthermore, EPI
did not provide information on the
methodological specifications,
including details on central
assumptions, upon which their analysis
relied.
The analysis described in EPI’s blog
post does not consider the amount of
time tipped employees currently spend
on tipped versus related, non-tipped
53 The Department notes that the comment itself
lacks any specificity to replicate the estimates it
purports to support the conclusions. To better
understand the basis for these assertions, the
Department reviewed the blog post at one point in
time (and is unaware whether the post was
modified at any time during the notice and
comment period or thereafter) which itself lacks
certain data and calculations necessary to
reproduce it and evaluate its rigor. Further, because
the comment itself merely concludes without the
blog’s analysis that transfers would occur, the
Department treats those conclusions as
unsupported assertions. However, because the
comment pointed to the blog post and the blog post
itself contains a number of errors, which color the
conclusions cited in the comment, the Department
evaluates the blog post here.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
86785
duties or how this final rule would
affect that amount. Instead, it assumes
that the final rule would enable certain
duties-shifting practices that employers
may use to reduce tipped employees’
earnings and estimates the amount of
that reduction. This assumption, which
undergirds EPI’s entire analysis,
proceeds from a fundamental
misunderstanding of this final rule and
the 80/20 approach it replaces.
According to the blog post, EPI is
concerned that replacing the 80/20
approach with the final rule would
enable the following type of dutiesshifting practice: ‘‘a restaurant that
employs a cleaning service to clean the
restaurant each night’’ could avoid
paying a direct cash wage of at least the
full Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per
hour for cleaning services by
‘‘requir[ing] servers to spend an extra
hour or two performing such work and
only pay them the tipped minimum
wage of $2.13 per hour,’’ and then
applying a tip credit to make up the
difference. However, taking a tip credit
under these circumstances is clearly
prohibited under this final rule.
Consistent with the discussion in
Section III.D.ii, an employee who
performs related, non-tipped duties for
‘‘an extra hour or two’’ each night after
the end of a shift would not be
performing those related, non-tipped
duties contemporaneously with tipped
duties or for a reasonable time
immediately before or after tipped
duties. As such, the employer could not
take a tip credit for time spent on the
related, non-tipped duties performed
well after tipped duties. Moreover, the
practice that EPI is concerned about is
presently permitted under the 80/20
approach, which allows a restaurant to
apply a tip credit to time a server
spends cleaning each night at the end of
his or her shift if the arbitrary ratio is
maintained. For example, a restaurant
could apply a tip credit where it
requires its servers to clean the dining
area for up to 2 hours after finishing an
8-hour shift.
As a second example, EPI’s blog post
envisions a situation in which a
restaurant that needs three dishwashers
would purposefully employ only a
single dishwasher and ‘‘require all
servers to wash dishes periodically over
the course of their shifts’’ to fill the
expected gap. Again, this practice is
permitted under the 80/20 approach, as
long as the restaurant maintains the
arbitrary ratio between tipped service
duties and non-tipped dishwashing
duties. A restaurant with a dozen
servers could easily require them to
perform the work of two dishwashers
and still maintain the 80/20 ratio
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
86786
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
needed to apply a tip credit to the
dishwashing work. But this same
practice would actually not be feasible
under the final rule, which requires
related non-tipped dishwashing duties
to be performed contemporaneously or
for a reasonable time immediately
before or after tipped service duties. To
be sure, a restaurant could theoretically
micromanage servers to ensure that they
perform dishwashing and service duties
in close temporal proximity, but that
effort would likely be prohibitively
costly. The restaurant would have to
hire managers to supervise servers’
minute-by-minute tasks, and major
business disruptions would result
because servers’ use of time would be
dictated by maintaining temporal
proximity between serving and
dishwashing, rather than by any actual
need to serve customers or wash
dishes.55 No rational restaurant would
bear these managerial expenses and
business disruptions just to save a
maximum of approximately $5 per hour
on dishwashing.56 As such, it would be
highly infeasible for a restaurant to shift
dishwashing duties onto servers as
contemplated by EPI under the final
rule. Furthermore, this does not even
begin to address the shock this
supposed shift in duties would deliver
to the underlying business model that
relies on many duties occurring
simultaneously to provide quality of
service concentrated around common
meal times, which would make it
impossible for wait staff and bartenders
to take on the full scope of additional
duties that EPI hypothesized.
In sum, EPI’s calculation is based
entirely on the premise that replacing
the 80/20 approach with this final rule
would increase certain duties-shifting
practices that it deems exploitative. But
the opposite may very well be true
because those ‘‘exploitative’’ practices
are permitted under the 80/20 approach
and prohibited under the final rule. The
Department does not believe it is
possible to overcome the flawed
premise that is central to EPI’s attempt
to quantify the potential transfers
occasioned by the rule. That said, the
Department acknowledges that such
transfers could occur in some cases, but
believes that employees will
nonetheless benefit from this rule. For
instance, replacing the 80/20 approach
with this final rule would prevent the
exploitative practices described in EPI’s
blog post. And employees may receive
higher earnings as a result of the
efficiencies that this rule advances.
As explained in the NPRM, the
Department believes there will be
considerable cost savings and
efficiencies associated with this change.
In particular, the Department believes—
and several commentators agreed—that
by eliminating the cost to scrutinize
employees’ time to demonstrate
compliance with the 80/20 approach,
employers will see a reduction in
regulatory cost and be able to adopt
work arrangements that better serve
customers, leading to more business and
greater tips. Additionally, the revisions
add clarity by referring to the list of
duties presumed to be related on
O*NET. The Department anticipates
that the cost of occasionally referring to
O*NET to ensure that employees’ nontipped duties are related to their tipped
duties will be significantly less than the
cost of continually monitoring the time
employees have spent performing
particular tasks.
iv. Summary of Transfers and Costs
Below is a summary table of the
quantified transfers and costs for the
RIA. Transfer costs in years two through
ten are assumed to be the same as in
Year 1.
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF TRANSFERS AND COSTS CALCULATIONS
[2019 Dollars]
Potential tip transfers
(millions)
$108.6 (range: $0 to $217.2) .................
Regulatory
familiarization costs
(millions)
$4.0
10-Year Annualized Estimates
3% Discount Rate ...................................................................................................
7% Discount Rate ...................................................................................................
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis—Certification
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
Public Law 104–121 (1996), requires
Federal agencies engaged in rulemaking
to consider the impact of their rules on
small entities, consider alternatives to
minimize that impact, and solicit public
55 The second example in EPI’s blog post is
distinguishable from the Department’s example in
section III.D.ii explaining that the final rule would
permit a hotel to take a tip credit for time when a
bellhop performing related, non-tipped duties in
between serving guests during a slow shift. In the
Department’s example, the natural pace of business
needs dictates when the bellhop performs related,
non-tipped duties versus tipped customer service
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
$108.6 (range: $0 to $217.2) .................
$108.6 (range: $0 to $217.2) .................
0.5
0.6
comment on their analyses. The RFA
requires the assessment of the impact of
a regulation on a wide range of small
entities, including small businesses,
not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Accordingly, the Department examined
the regulatory requirements of the rule
to determine whether they would have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
In its analysis, the Department used
the Small Business Administration size
standards, which determine whether a
business qualifies for small-business
status.57 According to the 2017
standards, Full-service Restaurants
(NAICS 722511) and Drinking Places
(Alcoholic Beverages) (NAICS 722410)
have a size standard of $7.5 million in
annual revenue.58 The Department used
this number to estimate the number of
small entities. Any establishments with
duties. By contrast, in EPI’s example, maintaining
close temporal proximity between non-tipped and
tipped duties, as oppose to actual business needs,
dictates when servers perform service versus
dishwashing duties. The restaurant would need to
direct servers’ minute-by-minute tasks to ensure
this artificial objective is given priority over the
restaurant’s actual business needs of serving
customers and washing dishes.
56 According to EPI’s blog post, the duties-shifting
enables a restaurant to pay $2.13 per hour for nontipped duties instead of the Federal minimum wage
of $7.25 per hour, thus achieve labor cost saving of
$5.12 per hour for the non-tipped duties.
57 SBA, Summary of Size Standards by Industry
Sector, 2017, www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
58 Id., Subsector 722.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
annual sales revenue less than this
amount were considered small entities.
The Department used the U.S. Census
Bureau’s 2012 Economic Census to
obtain the number of establishments
(operating the entire year) and annual
sales/receipts for the two industries in
the analysis: Full-service Restaurants
and Drinking Places (Alcoholic
Beverages).59 From annual receipts/
sales, the Department can estimate how
many establishments fall under the size
standard. Table 5 shows the number of
private, year-round establishments in
the two industries by revenue.60
The Department assumes that a
Compensation, Benefits, and Job
Analysis Specialist (SOC 13–1141) (or a
staff member in a similar position) with
a mean wage of $33.58 per hour in 2019
will review the rule.61 Given the change
in this rule, the Department assumes
that it will take on average about 15
minutes to review the final rule. The
Department has selected a small time
estimate because it is an average for
both establishments making changes to
their compensation structure and those
who are not (and consequently will
have negligible or no regulatory
familiarization costs). Further, the
change effected by this regulation is
unlikely to cause major burdens or
costs. Assuming benefits are paid at a
rate of 46 percent of the base wage, and
overhead costs are 17 percent of the
base wage, the reviewer’s effective
hourly rate is $54.74; thus, the average
86787
cost per establishment is $13.68 for 15
minutes of review time. The Department
applied this cost to all sizes of
establishments since each establishment
would incur this cost regardless of the
number of affected workers. Finally, the
impact of this rule was calculated as the
ratio of annual cost per establishment to
average sales receipts per establishment.
As shown, the annual cost per
establishment is less than 0.02 percent
of average annual sales for
establishments in all small entity size
classes. The impact of this rule on small
establishments will be de minimis. The
Department certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.
TABLE 5—COSTS TO SMALL ENTITIES
Number of
establishments a
Annual revenue/sales/receipts
722511
<$100,000 ........................................................................
$100,000 to $499,999 ......................................................
$250,000 to $499,999 ......................................................
$500,000 to $999,999 ......................................................
$1,000,000 to $2,499,999 ................................................
$2,500,000 to $4,999,999 ................................................
$5,000,000 to $9,999,999 ................................................
722410
Average annual
sales per
establishment
($) b
Annual cost per
establishment
($) c
Annual cost per
establishment
as percent of
sales/receipts
Full-Service Restaurants
10,211
28,651
39,554
46,793
45,173
17,039
3,531
$69,548
197,202
412,801
806,378
1,759,168
3,816,221
7,252,978
$13.68
13.68
13.68
13.68
13.68
13.68
13.68
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.68
13.68
13.68
13.68
13.68
13.68
13.68
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages)
<$100,000 ........................................................................
$100,000 to $249,999 ......................................................
$250,000 to $499,999 ......................................................
$500,000 to $999,999 ......................................................
$1,000,000 to $2,499,999 ................................................
$2,500,000 to $4,999,999 ................................................
$5,000,000 to $9,999,999 ................................................
4,622
11,610
9,059
5,138
3,386
755
164
70,992
192,269
394,111
775,656
1,694,767
3,772,747
7,445,953
a Limited
to establishments operated for the entire year.
to $2019 using the GDP deflator.
annual cost per establishment is the regulatory familiarization cost per establishment calculated in section V.B.iii.1.
b Inflated
c The
VII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Analysis
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532, requires agencies
to prepare a written statement, which
includes an assessment of anticipated
costs and benefits, before proposing any
Federal mandate that may result in
excess of $100 million (adjusted
annually for inflation) in expenditures
in any one year by state, local, and tribal
governments in the aggregate, or by the
private sector. This rulemaking is not
expected to affect state, local, or tribal
governments. While this rulemaking
would affect employers in the private
sector, it is not expected to result in
expenditures greater than $100 million
in any one year. See section V.B for an
assessment of anticipated costs and
benefits to the private sector.
VIII. Executive Order 13132,
Federalism
59 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census,
Accommodation and Food Services: Subject
Series—Estab. & Firm Size: Summary Statistics by
Sales Size of Establishments for the U.S., 2012,
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/
pages/productview.xhtml.
60 The small-business size standard for the two
industries is $7.5 million in annual revenue.
However, the final size category reported in the
table is $5 million–$9 million. This is a data
limitation because the 2012 Economic Census
reported this category of $5 million–$9 million and
not $5 million–$7.5 million. Thus, the total number
of firms shown may be slightly higher than the
actual number of small entities.
61 A Compensation/Benefits Specialist ensures
company compliance with Federal and state laws,
including reporting requirements; evaluates job
positions, determining classification, exempt or
non-exempt status, and salary; plans, develops,
evaluates, improves, and communicates methods
and techniques for selecting, promoting,
compensating, evaluating, and training workers. See
BLS, ‘‘13–1141 Compensation, Benefits, and Job
Analysis Specialists,’’ https://www.bls.gov/oes/
current/oes131141.htm (last visited July 27, 2020).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The Department has reviewed this
final rule in accordance with Executive
Order 13132 regarding federalism and
determined that it does not have
federalism implications. The final rule
would not have substantial direct effects
on the states, on the relationship
between the National Government and
the states, or on the distribution of
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
86788
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.
IX. Executive Order 13175, Indian
Tribal Governments
This final rule would not have
substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
List of Subjects
29 CFR Part 10
Administrative practice and
procedure, Construction industry,
Government procurement, Law
enforcement, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
29 CFR Part 516
Minimum wages, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
29 CFR Part 531
Wages.
29 CFR Part 578
Penalties, Wages.
29 CFR Part 579
Child labor, Penalties.
29 CFR Part 580
Administrative practice and
procedure, Child labor, Penalties,
Wages.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 21st day of
December, 2020.
Cheryl M. Stanton,
Administrator, Wage and Hour Division.
For the reasons set forth above, the
Department amends title 29, parts 10,
516, 531, 578, 579, and 580 of the Code
of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 10—ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM
WAGE FOR CONTRACTORS
1. The authority citation for part 10 is
revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; section 4, E.O.
13658, 79 FR 9851, 3 CFR, 2014 Comp., p.
219; Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 01–2014
(Dec. 19, 2014), 79 FR 77527 (Dec. 24, 2014).
2. Amend § 10.28 by revising
paragraphs (b)(2), (c), (e), and (f) to read
as follows:
■
§ 10.28
Tipped employees.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2)(i) In some situations an employee
is employed in a dual job, as, for
example, where a maintenance person
in a hotel also works as a server. In such
a situation the employee, if he or she
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
customarily and regularly receives more
than $30 a month in tips for his or her
work as a server, is a tipped employee
only with respect to his or her
employment as a server. The employee
is employed in two occupations, and no
tip credit can be taken for his or her
hours of employment in the occupation
of maintenance person.
(ii) Such a situation is distinguishable
from that of an employee who spends
time performing duties that are related
to his or her tip-producing occupation
but not themselves directed toward
producing tips. For example, a server
may spend part of his or her time
cleaning and setting tables, toasting
bread, making coffee, and occasionally
washing dishes or glasses. Likewise, a
counter attendant may also prepare his
or her own short orders or may, as part
of a group of counter attendants, take a
turn as a short order cook for the group.
An employer may take a tip credit for
any hours that an employee performs
related, non-tipped duties
contemporaneously with his or her
tipped duties, or for a reasonable time
immediately before or after performing
the tipped duties.
(iii) In addition to the examples
described in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this
section, a non-tipped duty is presumed
to be related to a tip-producing
occupation if the duty is listed as a task
in the description of the tip-producing
occupation in the Occupational
Information Network (O*NET) at
www.onetonline.org. Occupations not
listed in O*NET may qualify as tipped
occupations. For those occupations,
duties usually and customarily
performed by employees are presumed
to be related duties as long as they are
included in the list of duties performed
in similar O*NET occupations.
(c) Characteristics of tips. A tip is a
sum presented by a customer as a gift or
gratuity in recognition of some service
performed for the customer. It is to be
distinguished from payment of a fixed
charge, if any, made for the service.
Whether a tip is to be given, and its
amount, are matters determined solely
by the customer. Customers may present
cash tips directly to the employee or
may designate a tip amount to be added
to their bill when paying with a credit
card or by other electronic means.
Special gifts in forms other than money
or its equivalent such as theater tickets,
passes, or merchandise, are not counted
as tips received by the employee for
purposes of determining wages paid
under the Executive order.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Tip pooling. Where tipped
employees share tips through a tip pool,
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
only the amounts retained by the tipped
employees after any redistribution
through a tip pool are considered tips in
applying the provisions of FLSA section
3(t) and the wage payment provisions of
section 3 of the Executive order. There
is no maximum contribution percentage
on mandatory tip pools. However, an
employer must notify its employees of
any required tip pool contribution
amount, may only take a tip credit for
the amount of tips each employee
ultimately receives, and may not retain
any of the employees’ tips for any other
purpose.
(f) Notice. An employer is not eligible
to take the tip credit unless it has
informed its tipped employees in
advance of the employer’s use of the tip
credit. The employer must inform the
tipped employee of the amount of the
cash wage that is to be paid by the
employer, which cannot be lower than
the cash wage required by paragraph
(a)(1) of this section; the additional
amount by which the wages of the
tipped employee will be considered
increased on account of the tip credit
claimed by the employer, which amount
may not exceed the value of the tips
actually received by the employee; that
all tips received by the tipped employee
must be retained by the employee
except for a tip pooling arrangement;
and that the tip credit shall not apply to
any worker who has not been informed
of the requirements in this section.
PART 516—RECORDS TO BE KEPT BY
EMPLOYERS
3. Revise the authority citation for part
516 to read as follows:
■
Authority: Sec. 11, Pub. L. 75–718, 52 Stat.
1066, as amended (29 U.S.C. 211). Section
516.28 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 203(m),
as amended by sec. 2105(b), Pub. L. 104–188,
110 Stat. 1755; sec. 8102(a), Pub. L. 110–28,
121 Stat. 112; and sec. 1201, Div. S., Tit. XII,
Pub. L. 115–141, 132 Stat. 348. Section
516.33 also issued under Pub. L. 75–718, 52
Stat. 1060, as amended (29 U.S.C. 201 et
seq.). Section 516.34 also issued under Sec.
7, Pub. L. 101–157, 103 Stat. 944 (29 U.S.C.
207(q)).
4. Amend § 516.28 by revising the
section heading and adding paragraph
(b) to read as follows:
■
§ 516.28 Tipped employees and employeradministered tip pools.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) With respect to employees who
receive tips but for whom a tip credit is
not taken under section 3(m)(2)(A), any
employer that collects tips received by
employees to operate a mandatory tippooling or tip-sharing arrangement shall
maintain and preserve payroll or other
records containing the information and
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
data required in § 516.2(a) and, in
addition, the following:
(1) A symbol, letter, or other notation
placed on the pay records identifying
each employee who receive tips.
(2) Weekly or monthly amount
reported by the employee, to the
employer, of tips received (this may
consist of reports made by the
employees to the employer on IRS Form
4070).
PART 531—WAGE PAYMENTS UNDER
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
OF 1938
5. Revise the authority citation for part
531 to read as follows:
■
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 203(m) and (t), as
amended by sec. 3(m), Pub. L. 75–718, 52
Stat. 1060; sec. 2, Pub. L. 87–30, 75 Stat. 65;
sec. 101, sec. 602, Pub. L. 89–601, 80 Stat.
830; sec. 29(B), Pub. L. 93–259, 88 Stat. 55
sec. 3, sec. 15(c), Pub. L. 95–151, 91 Stat
1245; sec. 2105(b), Pub. L. 104–188, 110 Stat
1755; sec. 8102, Pub. L. 110–28, 121 Stat.
112; and sec. 1201, Div. S., Tit. XII, Pub. L.
115–141, 132 Stat. 348.
■
6. Revise § 531.50 to read as follows:
§ 531.50 Statutory provisions with respect
to tipped employees.
(a) With respect to tipped employees,
section 3(m)(2)(A) provides that, in
determining the wage an employer is
required to pay a tipped employee, the
amount paid such employee by the
employee’s employer shall be an
amount equal to—
(1) The cash wage paid such
employee which for purposes of such
determination shall not be less than the
cash wage required to be paid such an
employee on August 20, 1996 [i.e.,
$2.13]; and
(2) An additional amount on account
of the tips received by such employee
which amount is equal to the difference
between the wage specified in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section and
section 6(a)(1) of the Act.
(b) Section 3(m)(2)(A) also provides
that an employer that takes a tip credit
against its minimum wage obligations to
its tipped employees must inform those
employees of the provisions of that
subsection, and that the employees must
retain all of their tips, although the
employer may require those employees
to participate in a tip pool with other
tipped employees that customarily and
regularly receive tips.
(c) Section 3(m)(2)(B) provides that an
employer may not keep tips received by
its employees for any purposes,
including allowing managers and
supervisors to keep any portion of
employees’ tips, regardless of whether
the employer takes a tip credit under
section 3(m)(2)(A).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
(d) ‘‘Tipped employee’’ is defined in
section 3(t) of the Act as any employee
engaged in an occupation in which he
or she customarily and regularly
receives more than $30 a month in tips.
■ 7. Revise the first sentence of § 531.51
to read as follows:
§ 531.51 Conditions for taking tip credits
in making wage payments.
The wage credit permitted on account
of tips under section 3(m)(2)(A) may be
taken only with respect to wage
payments made under the Act to those
employees whose occupations in the
workweeks for which such payments
are made are those of ‘‘tipped
employees’’ as defined in section 3(t).
* * *
■ 8. Revise § 531.52 to read as follows:
§ 531.52 General restrictions on an
employer’s use of its employees’ tips.
(a) A tip is a sum presented by a
customer as a gift or gratuity in
recognition of some service performed
for the customer. It is to be
distinguished from payment of a charge,
if any, made for the service. Whether a
tip is to be given, and its amount, are
matters determined solely by the
customer. An employer that takes a tip
credit against its minimum wage
obligations is prohibited from using an
employee’s tips for any reason other
than that which is statutorily permitted
in section 3(m)(2)(A): As a credit against
its minimum wage obligations to the
employee, or in furtherance of a tip pool
limited to employees who customarily
and regularly receive tips. Only tips
actually received by an employee as
money belonging to the employee may
be counted in determining whether the
person is a ‘‘tipped employee’’ within
the meaning of the Act and in applying
the provisions of section 3(m)(2)(A)
which govern wage credits for tips.
(b) Section 3(m)(2)(B) of the Act
provides that an employer may not keep
tips received by its employees for any
purposes, regardless of whether the
employer takes a tip credit.
(1) An employer may exert control
over an employee’s tips only to
distribute tips to the employee who
received them, require employees to
share tips with other employees in
compliance with § 531.54, or, where the
employer facilitates tip pooling by
collecting and redistributing employees’
tips, distribute tips to employees in a tip
pool in compliance with § 531.54.
(2) An employer may not allow
managers and supervisors to keep any
portion of an employee’s tips, regardless
of whether the employer takes a tip
credit. A manager or supervisor may
keep tips that he or she receives directly
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
86789
from customers based on the service
that he or she directly provides. For
purposes of section 3(m)(2)(B), the term
‘‘manager’’ or ‘‘supervisor’’ shall mean
any employee whose duties match those
of an executive employee as described
in § 541.100(a)(2) through (4) or
§ 541.101 of this chapter.
■ 9. Revise § 531.54 to read as follows:
§ 531.54
Tip pooling.
(a) Monies counted as tips. Where
employees practice tip splitting, as
where waiters give a portion of their tips
to the busser, both the amounts retained
by the waiters and those given the
bussers are considered tips of the
individuals who retain them, in
applying the provisions of sections
3(m)(2)(A) and 3(t). Similarly, where an
accounting is made to an employer for
his or her information only or in
furtherance of a pooling arrangement
whereby the employer redistributes the
tips to the employees upon some basis
to which they have mutually agreed
among themselves, the amounts
received and retained by each
individual as his or her own are counted
as his or her tips for purposes of the Act.
Section 3(m)(2)(A) does not impose a
maximum contribution percentage on
mandatory tip pools.
(b) Prohibition against keeping tips—
(1) Meaning of ‘‘keep.’’ Section
3(m)(2)(B)’s prohibition against keeping
tips applies regardless of whether an
employer takes a tip credit. Section
3(m)(2)(B) expressly prohibits
employers from requiring employees to
share tips with managers or supervisors,
as defined in § 531.52(b)(2), or
employers, as defined in 29 U.S.C.
203(d). An employer does not violate
section 3(m)(2)(B)’s prohibition against
keeping tips if it requires employees to
share tips with other employees who are
eligible to receive tips.
(2) Full and prompt distribution of
tips. An employer that facilitates tip
pooling by collecting and redistributing
employees’ tips does not violate section
3(m)(2)(B)’s prohibition against keeping
tips if it fully distributes any tips the
employer collects no later than the
regular payday for the workweek in
which the tips were collected, or when
the pay period covers more than a single
workweek, the regular payday for the
period in which the workweek ends. To
the extent that it is not possible for an
employer to ascertain the amount of tips
that have been received or how tips
should be distributed prior to
processing payroll, tips must be
distributed to employees as soon as
practicable after the regular payday.
(c) Employers that take a section
3(m)(2)(A) tip credit. When an employer
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
86790
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
takes a tip credit pursuant to section
3(m)(2)(A):
(1) The employer may require an
employee for whom the employer takes
a tip credit to contribute tips to a tip
pool only if it is limited to employees
who customarily and regularly receive
tips; and
(2) The employer must notify its
employees of any required tip pool
contribution amount, may only take a
tip credit for the amount of tips each
employee ultimately receives, and may
not retain any of the employees’ tips for
any other purpose.
(3) An employer may not participate
in such a tip pool and may not include
managers and supervisors in the pool.
(d) Employers that do not take a
section 3(m)(2)(A) tip credit. An
employer that pays its tipped employees
the full minimum wage and does not
take a tip credit may impose a tip
pooling arrangement that includes
dishwashers, cooks, or other employees
in the establishment who are not
employed in an occupation in which
employees customarily and regularly
receive tips. An employer may not
participate in such a tip pool and may
not include supervisors and managers in
the pool.
■ 10. Revise § 531.55(a) to read as
follows:
§ 531.55 Examples of amounts not
received as tips.
(a) A compulsory charge for service,
such as 15 percent of the amount of the
bill, imposed on a customer by an
employer’s establishment, is not a tip
and, even if distributed by the employer
to its employees, cannot be counted as
a tip received in applying the provisions
of sections 3(m)(2)(A) and 3(t).
Similarly, where negotiations between a
hotel and a customer for banquet
facilities include amounts for
distribution to employees of the hotel,
the amounts so distributed are not
counted as tips received.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 11. Amend § 531.56 by revising the
second and third sentences in paragraph
(a) and paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) to
read as follows:
§ 531.56
‘‘More than $30 a month in tips.’’
(a) * * * An employee employed in
an occupation in which the tips he or
she receives meet the minimum
standard in the preceding sentence is a
‘‘tipped employee’’ for whom the wage
credit provided by section 3(m)(2)(A)
may be taken in computing the
compensation due him or her under the
Act for employment in such occupation,
whether he or she is employed in it full
time or part time. An employee
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
employed full time or part time in an
occupation in which he or she does not
receive more than $30 a month in tips
customarily and regularly is not a
‘‘tipped employee’’ within the meaning
of the Act and must receive the full
compensation required by the
provisions of the Act in cash or
allowable facilities without any
deduction for tips received under the
provisions of section 3(m)(2)(A).
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Individual tip receipts are
controlling. An employee must him- or
herself customarily and regularly
receive more than $30 a month in tips
in order to qualify as a tipped employee.
The fact that he or she is part of a group
which has a record of receiving more
than $30 a month in tips will not qualify
him or her. For example, a server who
is newly hired will not be considered a
tipped employee merely because the
other servers in the establishment
receive tips in the requisite amount. For
the method of applying the test in initial
and terminal months of employment,
see § 531.58.
(d) Significance of minimum monthly
tip receipts. More than $30 a month in
tips customarily and regularly received
by the employee is a minimum standard
that must be met before any wage credit
for tips is determined under section
3(m)(2)(A). It does not govern or limit
the determination of the appropriate
amount of wage credit under section
3(m)(2)(A) that may be taken for tips
under section 6(a)(1) (tip credit equals
the difference between the minimum
wage required by section 6(a)(1) and the
cash wage paid (at least $2.13 per
hour)).
(e) Dual jobs. (1) In some situations an
employee is employed in a dual job, as
for example, where a maintenance
person in a hotel also works as a server.
In such a situation the employee, if he
or she customarily and regularly
receives more than $30 a month in tips
for his or her work as a server, is a
tipped employee only with respect to
his or her employment as a server. The
employee is employed in two
occupations, and no tip credit can be
taken for his or her hours of
employment in the occupation of
maintenance person.
(2) Such a situation is distinguishable
from that of an employee who spends
time performing duties that are related
to his or her tip-producing occupation
but are not themselves directed toward
producing tips. For example, a server
may spend part of his or her time
cleaning and setting tables, toasting
bread, making coffee and occasionally
washing dishes or glasses. Likewise, a
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
counter attendant may also prepare his
or her own short orders or may, as part
of a group of counter attendants, take a
turn as a short order cook for the group.
An employer may take a tip credit for
any hours that an employee performs
related, non-tipped duties
contemporaneously with his or her
tipped duties, or for a reasonable time
immediately before or after performing
the tipped duties.
(3) In addition to the examples
described in paragraph (e)(2) of this
section, a non-tipped duty is presumed
to be related to a tip-producing
occupation if the duty is listed as a task
in the description of the tip-producing
occupation in the Occupational
Information Network (O*NET) at
www.onetonline.org. Occupations not
listed in O*NET may also qualify as
tipped occupations. For those
occupations, duties usually and
customarily performed by employees
are presumed to be related duties as
long as they are included in the list of
duties performed in similar O*NET
occupations.
■ 12. Revise § 531.59 to read as follows:
§ 531.59
The tip wage credit.
(a) In determining compliance with
the wage payment requirements of the
Act, under the provisions of section
3(m)(2)(A) the amount paid to a tipped
employee by an employer is increased
on account of tips by an amount equal
to the formula set forth in the statute
(minimum wage required by section
6(a)(1) of the Act minus cash wage paid
(at least $2.13)), provided that the
employer satisfies all the requirements
of section 3(m)(2)(A). This tip credit is
in addition to any credit for board,
lodging, or other facilities which may be
allowable under section 3(m).
(b) As indicated in § 531.51, the tip
credit may be taken only for hours
worked by the employee in an
occupation in which the employee
qualifies as a ‘‘tipped employee.’’
Pursuant to section 3(m)(2)(A), an
employer is not eligible to take the tip
credit unless it has informed its tipped
employees in advance of the employer’s
use of the tip credit of the provisions of
section 3(m)(2)(A) of the Act, i.e.: The
amount of the cash wage that is to be
paid to the tipped employee by the
employer; the additional amount by
which the wages of the tipped employee
are increased on account of the tip
credit claimed by the employer, which
amount may not exceed the value of the
tips actually received by the employee;
that all tips received by the tipped
employee must be retained by the
employee except for a tip pooling
arrangement limited to employees who
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
customarily and regularly receive tips;
and that the tip credit shall not apply to
any employee who has not been
informed of the requirements in this
section. The credit allowed on account
of tips may be less than that permitted
by statute (minimum wage required by
section 6(a)(1) minus the cash wage paid
(at least $2.13)); it cannot be more. In
order for the employer to claim the
maximum tip credit, the employer must
demonstrate that the employee received
at least that amount in actual tips. If the
employee received less than the
maximum tip credit amount in tips, the
employer is required to pay the balance
so that the employee receives at least
the minimum wage with the defined
combination of wages and tips. With the
exception of tips contributed to a tip
pool limited to employees who
customarily and regularly receive tips as
described in § 531.54, section 3(m)(2)(A)
also requires employers that take a tip
credit to permit employees to retain all
tips received by the employee.
■ 13. Revise § 531.60 to read as follows:
§ 531.60
Overtime payments.
When overtime is worked by a tipped
employee who is subject to the overtime
pay provisions of the Act, the
employee’s regular rate of pay is
determined by dividing the employee’s
total remuneration for employment
(except statutory exclusions) in any
workweek by the total number of hours
actually worked by the employee in that
workweek for which such compensation
was paid. (See part 778 of this chapter
for a detailed discussion of overtime
compensation under the Act.) In
accordance with section 3(m)(2)(A), a
tipped employee’s regular rate of pay
includes the amount of tip credit taken
by the employer per hour (not in excess
of the minimum wage required by
section 6(a)(1) minus the cash wage paid
(at least $2.13)), the reasonable cost or
fair value of any facilities furnished to
the employee by the employer, as
authorized under section 3(m) and this
part, and the cash wages including
commissions and certain bonuses paid
by the employer. Any tips received by
the employee in excess of the tip credit
need not be included in the regular rate.
Such tips are not payments made by the
employer to the employee as
remuneration for employment within
the meaning of the Act.
PART 578—TIP RETENTION, MINIMUM
WAGE, AND OVERTIME
VIOLATIONS—CIVIL MONEY
PENALTIES
14. The authority citation for part 578
is revised to read as follows:
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 216(e), as amended by
sec. 9, Pub. L. 101–157, 103 Stat. 938, sec.
3103, Pub. L. 101–508, 104 Stat. 1388–29,
sec. 302(a), Pub. L. 110–233, 122 Stat. 920,
and sec. 1201, Div. S., Tit. XII, Pub. L. 115–
141, 132 Stat. 348; Pub. L. 101–410, 104 Stat.
890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note), as amended by
sec. 31001(s), Pub. L. 104–134, 110 Stat.
1321–358, 1321–373, and sec. 701, Pub. L.
114–74, 129 Stat 584.
15. The heading of part 578 is revised
to read as set forth above.
■ 16. Revise § 578.1 to read as follows:
■
§ 578.1
What does this part cover?
Section 9 of the Fair Labor Standards
Amendments of 1989 amended section
16(e) of the Act to provide that any
person who repeatedly or willfully
violates the minimum wage (section 6)
or overtime provisions (section 7) of the
Act shall be subject to a civil money
penalty not to exceed $1,100 for each
such violation. In 2001, the Wage and
Hour Division (WHD) adjusted this
penalty for inflation pursuant to the
Federal Civil Penalties Inflation
Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–
410), as amended by the Debt Collection
Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–
134, section 31001(s)). The Genetic
Information Nondiscrimination Act of
2008 amended section 16(e) of the Act
to reflect this increase. See Public aw.
110–233, sec. 302(a), 122 Stat. 920.
Section 1201(b)(3) of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2018, amended
section 16(e) to add that any person who
violates section 3(m)(2)(B) of the Act
shall be subject to a civil money penalty
not to exceed $1,100. The Federal Civil
Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of
1990 (Pub. L. 101–410), as amended by
the Debt Collection Improvement Act of
1996 (Pub. L. 104–134, section 31001(s))
and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation
Adjustment Act Improvements Act of
2015 (Pub. L. 114–74, section 701),
requires that inflationary adjustments be
annually made in these civil money
penalties according to a specified costof-living formula. This part defines
terms necessary for administration of
the civil money penalty provisions,
describes the violations for which a
penalty may be imposed, and describes
criteria for determining the amount of
penalty to be assessed. The procedural
requirements for assessing and
contesting such penalties are contained
in part 580 of this chapter.
■ 17. Revise § 578.3 to read as follows:
§ 578.3 What types of violations may result
in a penalty being assessed?
(a) In general. (1) A penalty of up to
$1,162 per violation may be assessed
against any person who repeatedly or
willfully violates section 3(m)(2)(B) of
the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
86791
(2) A penalty of up to $2,074 per
violation may be assessed against any
person who repeatedly or willfully
violates section 6 (minimum wage) or
section 7 (overtime) of the Act. The
amount of the penalties stated in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section
will be determined by applying the
criteria in § 578.4.
(b) Repeated violations. An
employer’s violation of section
3(m)(2)(B), section 6, or section 7 of the
Act shall be deemed to be ‘‘repeated’’
for purposes of this section:
(1) Where the employer has
previously violated section 3(m)(2)(B),
section 6, or section 7 of the Act,
provided the employer has previously
received notice, through a responsible
official of the Wage and Hour Division
or otherwise authoritatively, that the
employer allegedly was in violation of
the provisions of the Act; or
(2) Where a court or other tribunal has
made a finding that an employer has
previously violated section 3(m)(2)(B),
section 6, or section 7 of the Act, unless
an appeal therefrom which has been
timely filed is pending before a court or
other tribunal with jurisdiction to hear
the appeal, or unless the finding has
been set aside or reversed by such
appellate tribunal.
(c) Willful violations. (1) An
employer’s violation of section
3(m)(2)(B), section 6, or section 7 of the
Act shall be deemed to be ‘‘willful’’ for
purposes of this section where the
employer knew that its conduct was
prohibited by the Act or showed
reckless disregard for the requirements
of the Act. All of the facts and
circumstances surrounding the violation
shall be taken into account in
determining whether a violation was
willful.
(2) For purposes of this section, the
employer’s receipt of advice from a
responsible official of the Wage and
Hour Division to the effect that the
conduct in question is not lawful can be
sufficient to show that the employer’s
conduct is knowing, but is not
automatically dispositive.
18. Revise § 578.4(a) to read as
follows:
■
§ 578.4
Determination of penalty.
(a) In determining the amount of
penalty to be assessed for any repeated
or willful violation of section 3(m)(2)(B),
section 6, or section 7 of the Act, the
Administrator shall consider the
seriousness of the violations and the
size of the employer’s business.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
86792
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
PART 579—CHILD LABOR
VIOLATIONS—CIVIL MONEY
PENALTIES
19. The authority citation for part 579
is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 203(m), (l), 211, 212,
213(c), 216; Reorg. Plan No. 6 of 1950, 64
Stat. 1263, 5 U.S.C. App; secs. 25, 29, 88 Stat.
72, 76; Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 01–
2014 (Dec. 19, 2014), 79 FR 77527 (Dec. 24,
2014); 28 U.S.C. 2461 Note.
20. Amend § 579.1 by:
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory
text;
■ b. Redesignating paragraph (a)(2) as
paragraph (a)(2)(i); and
■ c. Adding paragraph (a)(2)(ii).
The revision and addition read as
follows:
■
■
§ 579.1
Purpose and scope.
(a) Section 16(e), added to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), as
amended, by the Fair Labor Standards
Amendments of 1974, and as further
amended by the Fair Labor Standards
Amendments of 1989, the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, the
Compactor and Balers Safety Standards
Modernization Act of 1996, the Genetic
Information Nondiscrimination Act of
2008, and the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2018, provides
for the imposition of civil money
penalties in the following manner:
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Any person who repeatedly or
willfully violates section 203(m)(2)(B) of
the FLSA, relating to the retention of
tips, shall be subject to a civil penalty
not to exceed $1,162 for each such
violation.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 21. Amend § 579.2 by revising the
definition of ‘‘Willful violations’’ to read
as follows:
§ 579.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Willful violations under this section
has several components. An employer’s
violation of section 12 or section 13(c)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:45 Dec 29, 2020
Jkt 253001
of the Act relating to child labor or any
regulation issued pursuant to such
sections, shall be deemed to be willful
for purposes of this section where the
employer knew that its conduct was
prohibited by the Act or showed
reckless disregard for the requirements
of the Act. All of the facts and
circumstances surrounding the violation
shall be taken into account in
determining whether a violation was
willful. In addition, for purposes of this
section, the employer’s receipt of advice
from a responsible official of the Wage
and Hour Division to the effect that the
conduct in question is not lawful can be
sufficient to show that the employer’s
conduct is knowing, but is not
automatically dispositive.
PART 580—CIVIL MONEY
PENALTIES—PROCEDURES FOR
ASSESSING AND CONTESTING
PENALTIES
22. The authority citation for part 580
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 9a, 203, 209, 211, 212,
213(c), 216; Reorg. Plan No. 6 of 1950, 64
Stat. 1263, 5 U.S.C. App; secs. 25, 29, 88 Stat.
72, 76; Secretary’s Order 01–2014 (Dec. 19,
2014), 79 FR 77527 (Dec. 24, 2014); 5 U.S.C.
500, 503, 551, 559; 103 Stat. 938.
23. Revise the first sentence of § 580.2
to read as follows:
■
§ 580.2
rules.
Applicability of procedures and
Frm 00038
Whenever the Administrator
determines that there has been a
violation by any person of section 12 of
the Act relating to child labor or any
regulation thereunder as set forth in part
579 of this chapter, or determines that
there has been a repeated or willful
violation by any person of section
3(m)(2)(B), section 6, or section 7 of the
Act, and determines that imposition of
a civil money penalty for such violation
is appropriate, the Administrator shall
issue and serve a notice of such penalty
on such person in person or by certified
mail. * * *
25. Amend § 580.12 by revising the
first sentence of paragraph (b) of to read
as follows:
■
§ 580.12 Decision and Order of
Administrative Law Judge.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The decision of the Administrative
Law Judge shall be limited to a
determination of whether the
respondent has committed a violation of
section 12, or a repeated or willful
violation of section 3(m)(2)(B), section
6, or section 7 of the Act, and the
appropriateness of the penalty assessed
by the Administrator. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
26. Amend § 580.18 by revising the
third sentence in paragraph (b)(3) to
read as follows:
■
The procedures and rules contained
in this part prescribe the administrative
process for assessment of civil money
penalties for any violation of the child
labor provisions at section 12 of the Act
and any regulation thereunder as set
forth in part 579 of this chapter, and for
assessment of civil money penalties for
any repeated or willful violation of the
tip retention provisions of section
3(m)(2)(B), the minimum wage
provisions of section 6, or the overtime
provisions of section 7 of the Act or the
regulations thereunder set forth in 29
CFR subtitle B, chapter V. * * *
■ 24. Revise the first sentence of § 580.3
to read as follows:
PO 00000
§ 580.3 Written notice of determination
required.
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
§ 580.18
penalty.
Collection and recovery of
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) * * * A willful violation of
sections 3(m)(2)(B), 6, 7, or 12 of the Act
may subject the offender to the penalties
provided in section 16(a) of the Act,
enforced by the Department of Justice in
criminal proceedings in the United
States courts. * * *
[FR Doc. 2020–28555 Filed 12–29–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–27–P
E:\FR\FM\30DER3.SGM
30DER3
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 86756-86792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28555]
[[Page 86755]]
Vol. 85
Wednesday,
No. 250
December 30, 2020
Part III
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR Part 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wage and Hour Division
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR Parts 516, 531, 578, et al.
Tip Regulations Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2020 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 86756]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
29 CFR Part 10
Wage and Hour Division
29 CFR Parts 516, 531, 578, 579, and 580
RIN 1235-AA21
Tip Regulations Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
AGENCY: Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 (CAA), Congress
amended section 3(m) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to prohibit
employers from keeping tips received by their employees, regardless of
whether the employers take a tip credit under section 3(m). In this
final rule, the Department of Labor (Department) amends its tip
regulations to address these amendments. The final rule also codifies
the Department's guidance regarding the tip credit's application to
employees who perform tipped and non-tipped duties.
DATES: This final rule is effective March 1, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy DeBisschop, Director of the
Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour
Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, telephone: (202) 693-0406 (this is not
a toll-free number). Copies of this final rule may be obtained in
alternative formats (Large Print, Braille, Audio Tape, or Disc), upon
request, by calling (202) 693-0675 (this is not a toll-free number).
TTY/TDD callers may dial toll-free (877) 889-5627 to obtain information
or request materials in alternative formats.
Questions of interpretation or enforcement of the agency's existing
regulations may be directed to the nearest WHD district office. Locate
the nearest office by calling the WHD's toll-free help line at (866)
4US-WAGE ((866) 487-9243) between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. in your local time
zone, or log onto WHD's website at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/contact/local-offices for a nationwide listing of WHD district and area
offices.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
The FLSA generally requires covered employers to pay their
employees at least the Federal minimum wage, which is currently $7.25
per hour. See 29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1). As amended, section 3(m) of the FLSA
allows an employer that satisfies certain requirements to count a
limited amount of the tips received by its ``tipped employees'' as a
credit toward its Federal minimum wage obligation (known as a ``tip
credit''). See 29 U.S.C. 203(m)(2)(A). An employer may take a tip
credit only for ``tipped employees'' and only if, among other things,
its tipped employees retain all their tips. Id. This requirement does
not, however, preclude an employer that takes a tip credit from
implementing a tip pool in which tips are shared only among those
employees who ``customarily and regularly receive tips.'' Id.
In 2011, the Department revised its tip regulations to reflect its
view at the time that, regardless of whether their employer takes a tip
credit, the FLSA required that tipped employees retain all tips they
received, except tips distributed through a tip pool limited to
employees who customarily and regularly receive tips. (76 FR 18855)
See, e.g., 29 CFR 531.52. On December 5, 2017, the Department published
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), 82 FR 57395, which proposed to
rescind the parts of its tip regulations that applied to employers that
pay a direct cash wage of at least the full Federal minimum wage and do
not take a tip credit.
On March 23, 2018, Congress amended section 3(m) of the FLSA in the
CAA, Public Law 115-141, Div. S., Tit. XII, sec. 1201, 132 Stat. 348,
1148-49 (2018). Among other things, the CAA revised section 3(m) by
renumbering the existing tip credit language as section 3(m)(2)(A) and
adding a new section 3(m)(2)(B). That new section prohibits employers
from keeping their employees' tips ``for any purposes, including
allowing managers or supervisors to keep any portion of employees'
tips'' even if they do not claim a tip credit. In addition, the CAA
amended sections 16(b) and 16(c) of the FLSA to permit private parties
and the Department to recover any tips unlawfully kept by an employer
in violation of section 3(m)(2)(B), in addition to an equal amount of
liquidated damages. Finally, the CAA amended section 16(e) of the FLSA
to give the Department discretion to impose civil money penalties
(CMPs) up to $1,100 when employers unlawfully keep employees' tips. On
October 8, 2019, the Department issued a new NPRM proposing, among
other things, to update its tip regulations to incorporate the CAA
amendments (84 FR 53956).
Congress specified in the CAA that the portions of the 2011 final
rule that ``are not addressed by section 3(m) . . . (as such section
was in effect on April 5, 2011), shall have no further force or effect
until any future action taken by [the Department of Labor].'' CAA, Div.
S, Tit. XII, sec. 1201(c). As the Department explained in a Field
Assistance Bulletin (FAB) published shortly thereafter, that statement
applies to those portions of the Department's regulations--Sec. Sec.
531.52, 531.54, and 531.59--that restricted tip pooling by employers
that pay tipped employees at least the full minimum wage as a direct
cash wage and, therefore, do not claim a tip credit. See FAB No. 2018-3
(Apr. 6, 2018).\1\ In light of the CAA's amendments to the FLSA, the
Department's 2019 NPRM withdrew the 2017 NPRM, which addressed the same
topic as those amendments. 84 FR 53956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/fab2018_3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule revises the Department's current tip pooling
regulations in light of the 2018 CAA amendments. The CAA did not change
the statutory requirements, now in section 3(m)(2)(A) of the FLSA, that
apply to employers that take a tip credit. Those employers may continue
to institute a mandatory ``traditional'' tip pool, that is, a tip pool
limited to employees who ``customarily and regularly'' receive tips. In
addition, the CAA removed the regulatory restrictions on an employer's
ability to require tip pooling when it does not take a tip credit;
those employers may now implement mandatory, ``nontraditional'' tip
pools, which include employees who do not customarily and regularly
receive tips, such as cooks and dishwashers.
The CAA also imposed a new prohibition, in section 3(m)(2)(B), that
applies to all employers regardless of whether they take a tip credit:
Employers may not keep employees' tips and may not allow managers or
supervisors to do so. Among other things, section 3(m)(2)(B) prohibits
employers, managers, and supervisors from receiving employees' tips as
part of any tip pooling arrangement. It also prohibits employers from
operating tip pools in any manner such that they ``keep'' tips.
This final rule updates the Department's tip regulations to
incorporate the CAA's amendments to the FLSA. As explained above, the
CAA renumbered the FLSA's existing tip
[[Page 86757]]
credit language as section 3(m)(2)(A), but made no substantive changes
to that language. As a result, this rule does not alter the
Department's existing regulations and guidance regarding section
3(m)(2)(A) for employers that claim a tip credit. Those regulations are
addressed only as necessary to clarify how they relate to the CAA's
amendments to the FLSA. In this rule, the Department makes the
following three substantive changes to regulations concerning tips.
First, the rule incorporates the new statutory language, section
3(m)(2)(B)--which applies whether or not the employer takes a tip
credit--into the Department's regulations and incorporates a new
recordkeeping requirement to help it administer the new statutory
language. Second, this rule, consistent with the CAA's amendments,
removes the portions of the Department's regulations that prohibited
certain employers--those that pay their tipped employees a direct cash
wage of at least the full Federal minimum wage and do not take a tip
credit against their minimum wage obligations--from including employees
who do not customarily and regularly receive tips, such as cooks and
dishwashers, in mandatory tip pooling arrangements. Third, this rule
amends the Department's regulations to reflect recent guidance
explaining that an employer may take a tip credit for time that an
employee in a tipped occupation spends performing related, non-tipped
duties contemporaneously with tipped duties, or for a reasonable time
immediately before or after performing the tipped duties. These amended
regulations also address which non-tipped duties are related to a tip-
producing occupation.
Additionally, the Department incorporates the CAA's new language
regarding CMPs into its regulations. The Department also takes this
opportunity to revise portions of its CMP regulations on willful
violations (specifically, 29 CFR 578.3 and 579.2). It does so to make
the regulatory language consistent with the way the Department actually
litigates willfulness issues and to address the appellate courts that
have, for example, ``urge[d]'' it to reconsider those regulations to
ensure their consistency with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the
meaning of ``willful'' in the FLSA.
Finally, the Department amends the portions of its regulations that
address the payment of tipped employees under Executive Order 13658,
Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors, to reflect rescissions in
the FLSA regulations for tipped employees, incorporate the Department's
explanation of when an employee performing non-tipped work is a tipped
employee, and otherwise align those regulations with the Executive
order.
The Department estimates this final rule could result in a
potential transfer of $109 million, as tip pools are expanded from
front-of-the-house employees alone to include back-of-the-house
employees. A directly observable transfer would occur only among
employees because section 3(m)(2)(B) prohibits employers from
participating in these tip pools or otherwise keeping employees' tips.
However, assuming the shared tips are large enough to maintain wage
levels for all workers in the tip pool, the Department acknowledges
that some employers could potentially offset some of the increase in
total compensation received by back-of-the-house workers by reducing
the direct wage that they pay those workers (as long as they do not
reduce their wage below the applicable minimum wage), and such an
outcome is what is modeled to produce the $109 million estimate of
transfers from employees to employers. The rule may also result in
transfers to workers as employers who adopt tip pools containing back-
of-the-house workers may not take a tip credit for their front-of-the-
house staff. The Department also acknowledges the possibility that some
transfers could occur as a result of the changes to the regulations
involving when an employer may take a tip credit, but the Department is
unable to estimate the likelihood or magnitude of these transfers. The
Department estimates that regulatory familiarization costs associated
with this final rule would be $3.86 million in the first year.
This rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Details
on the estimated cost savings of this rule can be found in the rule's
economic analysis. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
designated this rule as a `major rule,' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2),
under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.).
II. Background
A. Section 3(m)
Section 6(a) of the FLSA requires covered employers to pay their
nonexempt employees a minimum wage of at least $7.25 per hour. 29
U.S.C. 206(a). Section 3(m)(2)(A) allows an employer to satisfy a
portion of its minimum wage obligation to any ``tipped employee'' by
taking a partial credit toward the minimum wage based on tips an
employee receives. Id. 203(m)(2)(A). Section 3(t) defines ``tipped
employee'' as ``any employee engaged in an occupation in which he
customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips.'' Id.
203(t). An employer that elects to take a tip credit must pay the
tipped employee a direct cash wage of at least $2.13 per hour. The
employer may then take a credit against its wage obligation for the
difference--up to $5.12 per hour--in tips received by the employee if
the cash wage plus the employee's tips equal at least the minimum wage.
If the employee does not earn sufficient tips to bring his or her
hourly earnings to the minimum wage, the employer must pay any
additional wages required to make up the difference. If the employee's
cash wage plus tips exceeds the minimum wage, the employer must still
pay a cash wage of at least $2.13 per hour. An employer may take a tip
credit only if, among other things, the tipped employees retain all the
tips they receive. An employer taking a tip credit is also allowed to
implement a mandatory tip pool in which tips are shared only among
employees who ``customarily and regularly receive tips.''
Under section 3(m)(2)(B) of the FLSA, added by the CAA, ``an
employer may not keep tips received by its employees for any purposes,
including allowing managers or supervisors to keep any portion of
employees' tips.'' See Div. S., Tit. XII, sec.1201. Section 3(m)(2)(B)
applies regardless of whether an employer takes a tip credit.
B. Statutory and Regulatory History
i. 1966 and 1974 Amendments to the FLSA \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Congress also amended section 3(m)'s tip credit language in
1977, 1989, and 1996. These amendments changed only the amount of
tips received by employees that could be credited toward an
employer's minimum wage obligations. See Public Law 95-151, sec.
3(b), 91 Stat. 1245 (1977); Public Law 101-157, sec. 5, 103 Stat.
938 (1989); Public Law 104-188, sec. 2105(b), 110 Stat. 1755 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress created the FLSA's tip credit in 1966 by amending the
definition of ``wage'' in section 3(m). See Public Law 89-601, sec.
101(a), 80 Stat. 830 (1966). The Department promulgated its initial tip
regulations the following year. See 32 FR 13575 (Sep. 28, 1967). In
1974, Congress amended section 3(m) to prohibit an employer from taking
a tip credit unless, among other things, ``all tips received by [an]
employee have been retained by the employee, except that this
subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the pooling of tips among
employees who customarily and regularly receive tips.'' Public Law 93-
259, sec. 13(e), 88 Stat. 55 (1974). As a result, an employer that
takes a tip
[[Page 86758]]
credit may require a tipped employee to share tips with other employees
engaged in occupations that customarily and regularly receive tips, but
it cannot use employees' tips for any other purpose or require tipped
employees to share them with employees who do not customarily and
regularly receive tips. By setting conditions under which an employer
may take a tip credit, the statute makes plain that Congress intended
these conditions to apply only to employers who take such a credit.
Section 3(m)(2)(A) contains no indication that Congress intended for
these restrictions to apply to employers that do not take a tip credit
and that use tip pools for other purposes, such as by sharing tips with
``back-of-the-house'' employees like cooks and dishwashers.
The Ninth Circuit reached this same conclusion in 2010, observing
that ``nothing in the text of the FLSA purports to restrict employee
tip-pooling arrangements when no tip credit is taken.'' Cumbie v. Woody
Woo, Inc., 596 F.3d 577, 583 (9th Cir. 2010). It reasoned that section
3(m)'s ``plain text'' merely ``imposes conditions on taking a tip
credit and does not state freestanding requirements pertaining to all
tipped employees.'' Id. at 580-81. The contrary position, the court
concluded, would render section 3(m)'s ``reference to the tip credit,
as well as its conditional language and structure, superfluous.'' Id.
at 581. It accordingly held that the employer, which did not take a tip
credit, did not violate section 3(m) by requiring its tipped employees
to contribute to a tip pool that included employees who were not
customarily and regularly tipped. See id.
ii. 2011 Regulations
The Department did not promulgate regulations addressing the 1974
amendments to the FLSA's tip credit language until 37 years later. See
76 FR 18832, 18854-56 (Apr. 5, 2011). Though issued after the Cumbie
decision, the 2011 regulations prohibited employers from, among other
things, establishing mandatory tip pools that include employees who are
not customarily and regularly tipped--whether the employers took a tip
credit or not. See 29 CFR 531.52 (2011) (``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.''). See also 29
CFR 531.54 (``an employer . . . may not retain any of the employees'
tips''); 531.59 (``With the exception of tips contributed to a valid
tip pool as described in Sec. 531.54, the tip credit provisions of
section 3(m) also require employers to permit employees to retain all
tips received by the employee.''). The Department acknowledged that
section 3(m) did not expressly address the use of an employee's tips
when an employer does not take a tip credit and pays a direct cash wage
equal to or greater than the minimum wage, but stated that the
regulation would fill a ``gap'' that the Department then believed to
exist in the statutory scheme. 76 FR 18841-42.
Multiple lawsuits challenged the Department's authority under
section 3(m) to regulate employers that pay a direct cash wage of at
least the Federal minimum wage. The parties challenging the validity of
the 2011 regulations argued, and several courts ruling in favor of
those parties recognized, that section 3(m)'s text reflected Congress'
intent to impose conditions only on employers that take a tip credit.
See, e.g., Malivuk v. Ameripark, LLC, No. 15-2570, 2016 WL 3999878, at
*4 (N.D. Ga. July 26, 2016) (agreeing that ``Section 203(m) only
imposed a condition on employers who take a tip credit, rather than a
blanket requirement on all employers regardless of whether they take a
tip credit.''); Trinidad v. Pret A Manger (USA) Ltd., 962 F. Supp. 2d
545, 562 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (``Although the Court need not resolve this
issue definitively . . . [it] finds Pret's argument more persuasive:
The DOL regulations are contrary to the plain language of Sec.
203(m).'').
In 2016, a divided Ninth Circuit panel upheld the validity of the
2011 regulations. See Oregon Rest. & Lodging Ass'n (ORLA) v. Perez, 816
F.3d 1080, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016). Although the Ninth Circuit declined en
banc review of the decision, ten judges dissented on the ground that
the FLSA authorized the Department to address tip pooling and tip
retention only when an employer takes a tip credit. 843 F.3d 355, 356
(9th Cir. 2016) (O'Scannlain, J., dissenting from denial of reh'g en
banc). The dissent noted that the Ninth Circuit itself had decided in
Cumbie that the FLSA ``clearly and unambiguously permits employers who
forgo a tip credit to arrange their tip-pooling affairs however they
see fit.'' Id. at 358 (citing Cumbie, 596 F.3d at 579 n.6, 581-83). The
dissent therefore concluded that ``because the Department [had] not
been delegated authority to ban tip pooling by employers who forgo the
tip credit, the Department's assertion of regulatory jurisdiction [was]
manifestly contrary to the statute and exceed[ed] its statutory
authority.'' Id. at 363 (internal quotation marks omitted). The
National Restaurant Association, on behalf of itself and other ORLA
plaintiffs, sought U.S. Supreme Court review. See Pet. for Writ of
Cert., Nat'l Rest. Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, No. 16-920, 2017 WL
360483, (U.S. Jan. 19, 2017).
While the National Restaurant Association's petition was pending,
the Tenth Circuit issued a conflicting decision, ruling that the 2011
tip regulations were invalid to the extent they barred an employer from
using or sharing tips with employees who do not customarily and
regularly receive tips when the employer pays a direct cash wage of at
least the Federal minimum wage and does not take a section 3(m) tip
credit. See Marlow v. New Food Guy, Inc., 861 F.3d 1157, 1159 (10th
Cir. 2017). The Tenth Circuit held that the text of the FLSA limits an
employer's use of tips only when the employer takes a tip credit,
``leaving [the Department] without authority to regulate to the
contrary.'' See Marlow, 861 F.3d at 1163-64.
In light of the conflicting decisions from the Federal courts of
appeals, the Department adopted a nationwide ``nonenforcement policy''
under which it would ``not enforce'' the 2011 regulations in any
context in which an employer pays its employees a direct cash wage of
at least the Federal minimum wage. See 82 FR 57395, 57399 (Dec. 5,
2017).
In its 2018 response to the petition for a writ of certiorari in
the ORLA case, the Government explained that the Department had
reconsidered its defense of the 2011 regulations in light of the Ninth
Circuit's ten-judge dissent from denial of rehearing in ORLA and the
Tenth Circuit's decision in Marlow. That reconsideration had led the
Department to conclude that it had exceeded its statutory authority in
promulgating those regulations to the extent they apply to employers
that do not take a tip credit against their Federal minimum wage
obligations: ``[U]ntil the 2018 [congressional] amendments, Section
203(m) placed limits only on employers that took a tip credit,'' and
``[n]either Section 203(m) nor any other provision of the FLSA prevents
an employer that pays at least the minimum wage from instituting a
nontraditional tip pool [that includes back-of-the-house employees like
cooks and janitors] for employees' tips.'' Br. for Resps. at 26-27,
Nat'l Rest. Ass'n. (May 22, 2018). The government also noted that the
Department had published in December 2017 an NPRM that proposed to
rescind the challenged portions of the regulations. Id. at 10. Shortly
thereafter, the Supreme Court denied the petition. 138 S. Ct. 2697
(2018).
[[Page 86759]]
iii. 2017 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On December 5, 2017, the Department published an NPRM proposing to
rescind the portions of its 2011 tip regulations that imposed
restrictions on employers that pay a direct cash wage of at least the
full Federal minimum wage and do not take a tip credit against their
minimum wage obligations. See 82 FR 57395 (Dec. 5, 2017). It did so in
part because of its concerns at the time, in light of Marlow and the
dissent from the denial of rehearing in ORLA, that it had misconstrued
the statute when it promulgated the 2011 regulations. See 82 FR 57399.
The Department stated that where ``an employer has paid a direct cash
wage of at least the full federal minimum wage and does not take the
employee tips directly, a strong argument exists that the statutory
protections of section 3(m) do not apply.'' 82 FR 57402. The Department
also proposed allowing these employers to establish tip pools that
include employees who contribute to the customers' experience but do
not customarily and regularly receive tips, such as dishwashers or
cooks. See, e.g., 82 FR 57399.
A number of commenters on the 2017 NPRM supported allowing
employers to establish these tip pools. Several commenters pointed out
that these workers contribute to each customer's overall service, which
directly affects the size of the customer's tip. Many commenters,
however, expressed concern that employers would take tips received by
employees for its own purposes.
During a hearing on March 6, 2018, before the Subcommittee on
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the U.S. House of
Representatives Committee on Appropriations, Secretary of Labor R.
Alexander Acosta was asked about the proposed rulemaking. The Secretary
explained that the Tenth Circuit had made clear in Marlow, in reasoning
the Secretary found persuasive, that the Department lacked statutory
authority for its 2011 regulations at issue. He noted that Congress had
the authority to implement a solution, and he suggested that Congress
enact legislation stating that establishments, whether or not they take
a tip credit, may not keep any portion of employees' tips.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A recording of the testimony is available at https://www.congress.gov/committees/video/house-appropriations/hsap00/6Weo1vfNM1k.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. The CAA's Amendments to the FLSA
Later that month, Congress enacted the CAA, amending the FLSA to
address employers' practices with respect to their employees' tips.
Public Law 115-141, Div. S., Tit. XII, sec. 1201. Shortly thereafter,
the Department issued a FAB concerning the Wage and Hour Division's
(WHD) enforcement of the CAA amendments. See FAB No. 2018-3 (Apr. 6,
2018).
i. Amendments to Section 3(m) of the FLSA
The CAA left unchanged section 3(m)'s then-existing text,
renumbered as section 3(m)(2)(A), preserving the longstanding
requirements that apply to employers that take a tip credit. It also
added a new section 3(m)(2)(B) to the FLSA, which states that ``[a]n
employer may not keep tips received by its employees for any purposes,
including allowing managers or supervisors to keep any portion of
employees' tips, regardless of whether or not the employer takes a tip
credit.'' CAA, Div. S, Tit. XII, sec. 1201(a) (codified at 29 U.S.C.
203(m)(2)(B)); see FAB No. 2018-3 (Apr. 6, 2018).
ii. Effect on Regulations
Section 1201(c) of the CAA expressly addressed the portions of the
Department's 2011 regulations that restricted tip pooling when
employers pay tipped employees a direct cash wage of at least the full
FLSA minimum wage and do not take a tip credit. CAA, Div. S, Tit. XII,
sec. 1201(c). Under that section, the portions of the regulations at 29
CFR 531.52, 531.54, and 531.59 that were ``not addressed by section
3(m) . . . (as such section was in effect on April 5, 2011), shall have
no further force or effect until any future action taken by [the
Department of Labor].'' The Department explained in FAB No. 2018-3 that
this language effectively suspended the Department's existing
regulations prohibiting employers that pay tipped employees the full
Federal minimum wage from including back-of-the-house workers, such as
cooks and dishwashers, in a tip pool.
iii. Amendments to Section 16 of the FLSA
Section 16(b) of the FLSA allows employees to sue for unpaid
minimum wages or overtime compensation. The CAA amended that section to
add that ``[a]ny employer who violates section 3(m)(2)(B) shall be
liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of the sum
of any tip credit taken by the employer and all such tips unlawfully
kept by the employer, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated
damages.'' CAA, Div. S, Tit. XII, sec. 1201(b)(1).
Section 16(c) of the FLSA authorizes the Department to enforce the
payment of unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime compensation. The
CAA amended that section to add to the Department's enforcement
authority: ``The authority and requirements described in this
subsection shall apply with respect to a violation of section
3(m)(2)(B), as appropriate, and the employer shall be liable for the
amount of the sum of any tip credit taken by the employer and all such
tips unlawfully kept by the employer, and an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages.'' CAA, Div. S, Tit. XII, sec. 1201(b)(2).
Under section 16(e)(2), repeated or willful violators of the FLSA's
minimum wage and overtime requirements are subject to a CMP not to
exceed $1,100 for each such violation.\4\ The CAA amended this section
to add a CMP for violations of section 3(m)(2)(B): ``Any person who
violates section 3(m)(2)(B) shall be subject to a civil penalty not to
exceed $1,100 for each such violation, as the Secretary determines
appropriate, in addition to being liable to the employee or employees
affected for all tips unlawfully kept, and an additional equal amount
as liquidated damages[.]''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990
(Pub. L. 101-410), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act
of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134, sec. 31001(s)) and the Federal Civil
Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Pub. L.
114-74, sec. 701), requires that inflationary adjustments be made
annually in these civil money penalties according to a specified
formula.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. The Dual Jobs Regulation
The CAA's changes to the FLSA, in conjunction with subregulatory
guidance the Department issued in 2018, have illuminated the need to
harmonize and update the Department's ``dual jobs'' regulation,
codified at 29 CFR 531.56(e). The dual jobs regulation addresses when
an employer can take a tip credit for time that an employee in a tipped
occupation spends performing duties that do not directly result in tips
for that employee.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ As explained further below, there are a number of duties
that may contribute to the tipped worker's tips, but which are
performed by other employees who do not directly receive tips for
their work (e.g., the cook at a restaurant makes the food which the
server delivers to a table, but only the server receives a tip for
that work).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dual jobs regulation, Sec. 531.56(e), was introduced in 1967
as part of the Department's first final rule addressing tipped
employment. 32 FR 13575; see 29 CFR 531.50 through 531.60. The ``dual
jobs'' regulation was not contemplated in the notice proposing that
rule, see 32 FR 222-227 (Jan. 10, 1967), but was added as part of the
final rule. Under the regulation, an employee who works for the same
employer in
[[Page 86760]]
both a tipped occupation and a non-tipped occupation is a ``tipped
employee'' for purposes of section 3(t) of the FLSA only while employed
in the tipped occupation. Therefore, an employer may take a tip credit
against its minimum wage obligations only for the hours the employee
spends in the tipped occupation. It may not take a tip credit for the
time spent in a non-tipped occupation.
Section 531.56(e) also distinguishes between employees who have
dual jobs and tipped employees who perform ``related duties'' that are
not themselves directed toward producing tips. It uses the example of a
server who ``spends part of her time'' performing non-tipped duties,
such as ``cleaning and setting tables, toasting bread, making coffee,
and occasionally washing dishes or glasses.'' In that example, the
employee is still engaged in the tipped occupation of a server, for
which the employer may take a tip credit, rather than working part of
the time in a non-tipped occupation. 29 CFR 531.56(e). But that is as
far as the regulation goes. It does not set forth or explain criteria
for determining whether particular non-tipped duties are related to a
tipped occupation. It does not set forth or explain criteria for
determining when an employee is performing duties unrelated to his or
her tipped occupation and therefore engaged in a dual job. Nor does it
explain whether or when an employee who performs related non-tipped
duties more than ``part of the time'' or ``occasionally'' might cease
being employed in a tipped occupation and instead be engaged in a non-
tipped occupation. Nor does it even give examples illustrating
activities that would be considered (or not considered) related duties
for workers other than those in restaurants.
Section 531.56(e) did not define ``related duties,'' ``part of the
time,'' or ``occasionally,'' and this lack of precision creates a need
for clarification. WHD over the years attempted to clarify this rule
through subregulatory guidance, but this piecemeal approach was
insufficient. Cf. Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 112-13
(2015) (Scalia, J., concurring) (``There are weighty reasons to deny a
lawgiver the power to write ambiguous laws and then be the judge of
what the ambiguity means.''). For example, following the 1974 statutory
amendments to section 3(m) of the FLSA, WHD issued three opinion
letters that address this issue. In 1977, WHD addressed whether workers
employed as ``salad preparation persons'' could participate in a tip
pooling arrangement. WHD concluded that salad-preparation personnel
could not participate in a tip pool as they ``are essentially chefs''
who ``prepare food in the kitchen as any chef ordinarily would[,]'' and
rather than serving food to customers, ``their basic duty outside the
kitchen is to keep the buffet tables clean and replenish food as
needed.'' WHD Opinion Letter FLSA-623 (June 3, 1977).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The letter cited legislative history to support its
conclusion that chefs were among the ``employees who have not
customarily and regularly participated in tip pools.'' Id. (citing
S. Rep. 93-690 (1974) at 43).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1979, WHD addressed servers who ``report to work two hours
before the doors are opened to the public to prepare the vegetables for
the salad bar.'' WHD Opinion Letter FLSA-895 (Aug. 8, 1979). WHD opined
that the employer could not claim a tip credit for those two hours
because ``salad preparation activities are essentially . . . [those]
performed by chefs.'' Id. (citing WHD Opinion Letter FLSA-623 (June 3,
1977)).
In 1980, WHD addressed whether the tip credit applied to servers in
a restaurant who, as part of their closing duties, cleaned the salad
bar, placed condiment crocks in the cooler, cleaned and stocked the
server station, cleaned and reset the tables (including filling cheese,
salt, and pepper shakers), and vacuumed the dining room carpet. See WHD
Opinion Letter (Mar. 28, 1980). WHD opined that the employees would be
considered tipped employees for this period because they were not
engaged in a dual occupation. WHD noted that the after-hours cleanup
duties were ``assigned generally to the [server] staff'' at the
establishment. Id. WHD did not explain why it concluded that tearing
down and cleaning the salad bar was a tipped server's duty but
preparing vegetables for that same salad bar was a non-tipped chef's
duty. The letter suggested that if ``specific employees were routinely
assigned, for example, maintenance-type work such as floor vacuuming,''
the employer would have been precluded from claiming a tip credit for
the time the specific employees spent performing those maintenance
activities. Id.
Finally, in 1985, WHD addressed whether a server who, during a 5-
hour shift, performed 1.5 to 2 hours of preparatory work before the
restaurant opened, could be paid the tip-credit rate for the time spent
performing those preparatory activities. WHD Opinion Letter (Dec. 20,
1985). The preparatory work included a variety of tasks such as setting
tables, preparing coffee, and salad preparation. WHD repeated, but did
not elaborate upon or explain, its earlier statements that ``salad
preparation activities are essentially the activities performed by
chefs'' for which the employer could not take a tip credit. WHD then
concluded that because only one employee was assigned to the non-salad
preparatory work, the employee was responsible for preparing the entire
restaurant, not just his or her area. The employee spent 30 percent to
40 percent of the entire shift on those duties. Such a ``substantial
portion'' of the workday spent ``performing general preparation or
maintenance'' work was too extensive to be considered part of the same
occupation, and the employer could not take a tip credit for the hours
spent on those tasks. Id. This was the first time WHD employed a
proportion-of-time analysis to the ``dual jobs'' regulation.
In 1988, WHD amended its Field Operations Handbook (FOH) to include
section 30d00(e), regarding time spent in duties related to a tipped
occupation. WHD FOH Revision 563 (Dec. 12, 1988). According to the
handbook entry, Sec. 531.56(e) ``permits the taking of the tip credit
for time spent in duties related to the tipped occupation, even though
those duties are not by themselves directed toward producing tips
(i.e., maintenance and preparatory or closing activities),'' if those
duties are ``incidental'' and ``generally assigned'' to tipped
employees. To illustrate the types of related, non-tip producing duties
for which employers could take a tip credit, the FOH listed ``a waiter/
waitress . . . who spends some time cleaning and setting tables, making
coffee, and occasionally washing dishes or glasses,'' the same examples
included in Sec. 531.56(e). But ``where the facts indicate that
specific employees are routinely assigned to maintenance, or that
tipped employees spend a substantial amount of time performing general
preparation work or maintenance, no tip credit may be taken for the
time spent in such duties.'' For the first time, the FOH noted a
``substantial'' amount of time spent performing general preparation or
maintenance work as being in excess of 20 percent.
The FOH does not establish a binding legal standard on the public
and is not a device for establishing interpretive policy.\7\ Rather,
the FOH is an ``operations manual'' that makes available to WHD
investigators and staff policies already ``established through changes
in legislations, regulations, significant court decisions, and the
decisions and opinions of the WHD
[[Page 86761]]
Administrator.'' Id.; see also WHD Opinion Letter FLSA2020-12 (Aug. 31,
2020); Probert v. Family Centered Servs. of Alaska, Inc., 651 F.3d
1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2011). But, by furnishing these instructions to
WHD investigators and staff in the field, the FOH in practice
prohibited an employer from claiming a tip credit for ``related-
duties'' time if that time exceeded 20 percent of the employee's
workweek. The handbook entry stated no rationale for a hard percentage
cap in general or the 20 percent figure in particular, and the
Department did not issue any guidance rationalizing a hard cap. The
standard in the FOH became known as the ``80/20 rule,'' even though it
was not promulgated as a regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Field Operations Handbook, U.S. Dep't of Labor (last
accessed Aug. 18, 2020), available at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/field-operations-handbook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2009, WHD issued an opinion letter expressly rescinding the 80/
20 approach prescribed in the FOH, concluding that 20 years of
experience had shown it to be confusing and unworkable. WHD Opinion
Letter FLSA2009-23 (Jan. 16, 2009). WHD explained that, consistent with
the text of the FLSA and its regulations, so long as the duties
performed by the employees are part of their tipped occupation, those
employees are not engaged in ``dual jobs.'' Thus, the Department would
interpret the dual jobs regulation such that ``no limitation shall be
placed on the amount of these [related] duties that may be performed,
whether or not they involve direct customer service, as long as they
are performed contemporaneously with the duties involving direct
service to customers or for a reasonable time immediately before or
after performing such direct-service duties.'' Id. Following a change
in the administration, however, in 2009 WHD withdrew that opinion
letter ``for further consideration'' and stated it would ``provide a
further response in the near future.''
In 2012, WHD revised FOH 30d00(e), replacing it with language
currently located at section 30d00(f). The prior 1988 language had
stated that tipped employees could spend up to 20 percent of their
working time engaged in ``maintenance and preparatory or closing
activities'' such as cleaning and setting tables, making coffee, and
occasionally washing dishes or glasses.'' The 2012 revision, on the
other hand, stated categorically that ``maintenance work,'' such as
``cleaning bathrooms and washing windows,'' is not related to the
occupation of a server. Rather, ``such jobs are non-tipped
occupations'' subject to the full minimum wage, regardless of the time
spent. As with the 1988 entry, this language was not promulgated as a
rule and was not supported by guidance from WHD or the Department. As
the Department explained in the 2019 NPRM, this dual jobs policy set
forth in the FOH has proven difficult to enforce and resulted in
widespread compliance issues; it has also generated extensive, costly
litigation. See 84 FR 53972.
Due in large part to those concerns, the Department in November
2018 reinstated the January 16, 2009, opinion letter and later released
an accompanying FAB. See WHD Opinion Letter FLSA 2018-27; see also FAB
No. 2019-2 (Feb. 15, 2019). In these documents, the Department
explained that it would no longer prohibit an employer from taking a
tip credit for the time an employee performed related, non-tipped
duties as long as those duties were performed contemporaneously with,
or for a reasonable time immediately before or after, tipped duties.
See id. The Department also explained that, in addition to the examples
listed in Sec. 531.56(e), it would use the Occupational Information
Network (O*NET), a comprehensive database of worker attributes and job
characteristics, to determine whether a tipped employee's non-tipped
duties were related to his or her tipped occupation. The 2019 NPRM
proposed to revise Sec. 531.56(e) to reflect this 2018 guidance.
E. The Department's Proposal
On October 8, 2019, the Department issued a new NPRM, proposing to
amend its tip regulations under the FLSA to address the CAA's
amendments to the statute and to codify policy on how the tip credit
applies to employees who perform both tipped and non-tipped duties. The
Department proposed to incorporate the new statutory prohibition
against keeping employee tips--section 3(m)(2)(B), which applies
whether or not the employer takes a tip credit--into its existing
regulations and to enact new recordkeeping requirements to assist it in
administering the new language. The Department proposed, consistent
with the CAA's depriving of further force or effect those portions of
the Department's 2011 regulations that restricted tip pooling by
employers that do not take a tip credit, to remove the portions of its
regulations that prohibited those employers from including in mandatory
tip-pooling arrangements those employees who do not customarily and
regularly receive tips. Since the CAA merely renumbered the FLSA's
existing tip credit language, now section 3(m)(2)(A), the Department
did not propose revising the existing tip retention, tip pooling, and
notice regulations.
The Department proposed to incorporate into its CMP regulations the
new statutory language giving it authority to seek CMPs for violations
of section 3(m)(2)(B). To harmonize the regulations with Supreme Court
authority and the manner in which the Department actually litigates
willfulness, it also proposed to revise portions of its CMP regulations
(specifically, 29 CFR 578.3 and 579.2) that address how the Department
determines whether an FLSA violation is willful. Additionally, the
Department proposed to amend its tip regulations to reflect recent
guidance stating that an employer may take a tip credit for time that
an employee in a tipped occupation performs related, non-tipped duties
contemporaneously with or for a reasonable time immediately before or
after performing the tipped duties. Finally, the Department proposed to
amend its regulations that address the payment of tipped employees
under Executive Order 13658 (Establishing a Minimum Wage for
Contractors) to reflect the rescissions proposed in the FLSA
regulations for tipped employees, to incorporate the Department's
guidance on when an employee performing non-tipped work is a tipped
employee and to otherwise align those regulations with the Executive
order.
The Department received 466 timely comments on the NPRM during the
64-day comment period that ended on December 11, 2019.\8\ The comments
were from a broad array of constituencies, including small business
owners, restaurant companies, employer and industry associations,
worker advocacy groups, trade unions, non-profit organizations, social
scientists, law firms, Members of Congress, state attorneys general, a
state department of labor, and other interested members of the public.
All timely received comments may be viewed on the regulations.gov
website, docket ID WHD-2019-0004. Some of the comments the Department
received were general statements of support or opposition, and the
Department also received approximately 340 identical or nearly
identical ``campaign'' comments sent in response to an organized
initiative. Commenters expressed a wide variety of views on the merits
of particular aspects of the Department's proposal; however, most
commenters favored some, if not all, of the changes proposed in the
NPRM. Some commenters, including numerous
[[Page 86762]]
worker advocacy groups that submitted comments with substantially
similar language, requested that the Department reject proposed
revisions to its regulations that reflected recent guidance addressing
the extent to which an employer can take a tip credit for the time a
tipped employee spends performing related, non-tipped duties. The
Department has considered the timely submitted comments addressing the
proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Department extended the end of the comment period from
December 9 to December 11, 2019, due to an outage that temporarily
caused most web browsers to refuse access to Regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department also received a small number of comments that are
beyond the scope of this rulemaking. These include, for example,
requests that the Department reconsider its regulation on compulsory
service charges, Sec. 531.55, and a request that the Department
reconsider the notice requirements in Sec. 531.59. The Department does
not address those issues in this final rule.
Significant issues raised in the comments are discussed below,
along with the Department's responses to those comments.
III. Final Regulatory Revisions
The Department finalizes its proposals to amend its tip regulations
to implement the CAA amendments and address other issues. The sections
below address these regulatory revisions as adopted in the final rule.
The sections of this rule are separate and severable and operate
independently from one another. If any section is held to be invalid or
unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any person or
circumstance, or stayed pending further agency action, the Department
intends that the remaining sections continue in effect.
A. General Restrictions on an Employer's Use of Its Employees' Tips--
Section 531.52
i. An Employer May Not Keep Tips, Regardless of Whether It Takes a Tip
Credit
Section 3(m)(2)(B) of the FLSA prohibits an employer from
``keeping'' tips received by its employees ``for any purposes.'' The
prohibition on employers keeping tips applies regardless of whether the
employer takes a tip credit. The Department proposed to amend Sec.
531.52 to include the new statutory language prohibiting an employer
from keeping employees' tips and to clarify the extent to which an
employer may exert control over employees' tips without ``keep[ing]''
them in violation of 3(m)(2)(B). The Department proposed that an
employer may exert control over tips only to (1) promptly distribute
tips to the employee or employees who received them; (2) require
employees to share tips with other eligible employees; or (3) where the
employer facilitates tip pooling by collecting and redistributing
employees' tips, promptly distribute tips to eligible employees in a
tip pool. In these circumstances, the Department explained, employees,
not the employer, ``keep'' the tips.
Commenters--representing both employers and employees--supported
the Department's proposal to implement section 3(m)(2)(B)'s prohibition
on employers' keeping tips. See, e.g., Center for Workplace Compliance;
National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA); National Restaurant
Association; Oxfam. The Center for Workplace Compliance, for example,
commented that the proposal aligns with the language of the amendment.
The Department agrees, and adopts the changes to Sec. 531.52 as
proposed.
In addition to comments on the Department's proposal, several
commenters requested that the Department address whether, under the new
section 3(m)(2)(B), employers may deduct a portion of the transactional
fee charged by the credit card company from employees' credit card
tips. Historically, the Department has consistently taken the position
that, when a tip is charged to a credit card, an employer may reduce
the amount of tips paid to the employee by the percentage charged by
the credit card company as a transactional fee. For example, where a
credit card company charges an employer 3 percent on all sales charged
to its credit service, the employer may pay the employee 97 percent of
the charged tips without violating FLSA. The Department has long
permitted employers to do so, finding this consistent with the
statutory requirement that employees retain their tips. See WHD Opinion
Letter FLSA-214 (Mar. 28, 1977); WHD Opinion Letter FLSA 2006-1 (Jan.
13, 2006); 29 U.S.C. 203(m)(1) (1974); 32 FR 13580 (adopting 29 CFR
531.52 (1967)). The NPRM did not specifically address this issue;
however, as the Department explained shortly after Congress passed the
CAA amendments, the Department has continued to apply its previous
guidance concerning tips charged on credit cards. See FAB No. 2018-3
(Apr. 6, 2018). In response to the NPRM, some commenters urged the
Department to clarify that employers cannot reduce the amount of tips
by the amount of credit card transactional fees. These commenters
stated that it is the employer's choice to incur the costs associated
with taking credit cards, and section 3(m)(2)(B) should be interpreted
to prohibit them from using a portion of employee tips to subsidize
those costs. See NELP, NWLC, and the Pennsylvania Department of Labor
and Industry. In contrast, another commenter requested that the
Department affirm that an employer may continue to deduct those fees
under whatever final rule is implemented based on the NPRM. See Littler
Mendelson. The commenter noted the Department's longstanding position
allowing employers to do this and that courts have allowed the
practice. See, e.g., Myers v. Copper Cellar, 192 F.3d 546, 554 (6th
Cir. 1999) (employer may deduct the cost of ``converting the credited
tip to cash'').
After considering these comments, the Department affirms its
longstanding guidance authorizing employers to deduct the actual cost
of credit card processing charges from employees' tips. By deducting
transactional fees, the employer exerts only the amount of control
necessary to liquidate the tips to cash and distribute them to
employees. This is consistent with the Department's proposal, adopted
in this final rule, that an employer may exert control over employees'
tips without ``keep[ing]'' them in violation of 3(m)(2)(B) only to
distribute them to employees or to facilitate tip pooling. Credit-card
processing fees are not an imposition by the employer on the employee;
they are the price of converting credit obligations to cash. The same
fees would be imposed upon servers themselves if they collected their
tips through credit payments separate from the customer's payment to
the establishment. The Department reiterates that an employer may not
deduct more than the actual transactional fee charged by the credit
card company attributable to liquidating the credit card tip, nor may
the employer reduce the amount of tips paid to the employee to cover
other costs incurred by the employer related to credit card use, such
as the cost of installing a Point of Sale system. See WHD Opinion
Letter FLSA2006-1 (Jan. 13, 2006). An employer that uses tips to cover
those operating expenses would violate section 3(m)(2)(B).
ii. Managers and Supervisors May Not Keep Tips
a. Summary of the Final Rule
Section 3(m)(2)(B) prohibits employers, regardless of whether they
take a tip credit, from keeping tips, ``including allowing managers or
supervisors to keep any portion of employees' tips.'' 29 U.S.C.
203(m)(2)(B). The prohibition applies to managers or supervisors
obtaining employees' tips directly or indirectly,
[[Page 86763]]
such as via a tip pool. To clarify which employees qualify as managers
or supervisors for purposes of section 3(m)(2)(B), the 2019 NPRM
proposed Sec. 531.52(b)(2), which would codify the Department's
current enforcement policy under FAB No. 2018-3 (Apr. 6, 2018).
The Department is finalizing the language as proposed.
Specifically, the final rule uses the duties test, but not the salary
tests, from the FLSA's executive employee exemption to determine which
individuals are managers or supervisors who may not keep tips under
section 3(m)(2)(B).\9\ As the 2019 NPRM explained, this exclusion
ensures that the terms ``manager'' and ``supervisor'' encompass more
individuals than the term ``executive'' as used in section 13(a)(1) of
the FLSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ An employee is an executive exempt from the FLSA's minimum
wage and overtime requirements if the employee performs certain
duties, is paid on a salary basis, and is paid a minimum salary
level. 29 U.S.C. 213(a)(1), 29 CFR 541.100(a)(2)-(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In effect, the final rule defines a manager or supervisor for
purposes of section 3(m)(2)(B) as any employee (1) whose primary duty
is managing the enterprise or a customarily recognized department or
subdivision of the enterprise; (2) who customarily and regularly
directs the work of at least two or more other full-time employees or
their equivalent; and (3) who has the authority to hire or fire other
employees, or whose suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring or
firing are given particular weight. The definition also includes as
managers or supervisors any individuals who own at least a bona fide 20
percent equity interest in the enterprise in which they are employed
and who are actively engaged in its management.
The final rule also revises Sec. 531.52 to state that FLSA section
3(m)(2)(B) ``prohibits employers from requiring employees to share tips
with managers and supervisors,'' and revises Sec. 531.54 to state that
employers who do not take a tip credit ``may not include supervisors
and managers'' in a tip pool.
b. Comments Regarding the Definition of Managers and Supervisors
The Department received several comments addressing the issue of
who should be included as managers or supervisors under section
3(m)(2)(B). The majority of commenters expressed general support for
the proposal and one commenter noted that the proposed approach would
be familiar and therefore less likely to have unintended consequences.
Many commenters recommended modifications to the Department's proposal.
The Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry supported using the
executive exemption duties test, but recommended that every employee
who satisfies any of the three elements of the duties test be deemed a
``manager'' or ``supervisor'' under section 3(m)(2)(B). For example, an
employee who customarily and regularly directs the work of two or more
other employees, but does not have the authority to hire or fire other
employees, would be counted as a ``manager'' or ``supervisor'' under
this definition, and prohibited from sharing employee's tips.
Other commenters, including Littler Mendelson and Fisher Phillips,
recommended that the Department adopt the entire executive exemption,
including the salary basis and salary level tests, rather than
incorporating only the duties test. Littler asserted that this would
state ``an easy, bright-line rule'' and would save ``time and effort
necessary to determine whether lower-paid employees qualify for the
exemption.''
Other commenters, including the National Employment Law Project
(NELP), Restaurant Opportunities Center United (ROC), and A Better
Balance recommended incorporating a salary level into the definition,
such as the median wage for supervisors of food preparation and serving
workers based on the National Occupational Employment and Wage
Estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Occupational Employment
Statistics (OES). They proposed in the alternative that the definition
include the executive exemption's salary level test, 29 CFR
541.100(a)(1), but allow an hourly equivalent. This, they urged, would
allow more low-level managerial employees to participate in tip pools.
Finally, Senator Patty Murray and Representative Rosa DeLauro
stated that the executive exemption duties test ``is not appropriate
for accurately identifying all employees who are managers and
supervisors.'' Senator Murray and Representative DeLauro asserted that
the Department's proposal allows employees who engage in some
managerial work to participate in tip pools, while section 3(m)(2)(B)
prohibits that group from keeping employees' tips. They instead
recommended importing the definition of ``supervisor'' from section
2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act or using ``as a starting
point'' the definition of ``management'' from 29 CFR 541.102.
After considering all comments, the Department finalizes this
portion of Sec. 531.52 as proposed. Using the duties test
disjunctively or using the definition of ``management'' set forth in 29
CFR 541.102 would prevent employees who perform some lower-level
managerial responsibilities from participating in tip pools, even if
they are not bona fide managers or supervisors of the employer. On the
other hand, adopting the full executive exemption test (including the
salary basis and salary threshold tests) would, as Senator Murray and
Representative DeLauro noted, conflict with Congress's use of the terms
``managers'' and ``supervisors''--terms not used elsewhere in the
FLSA--rather than ``executives'' or a reference to section 13(a)(1).
This counsels against fully adopting the test used for the executive
exemption.
Relatedly, Senator Murray and Representative DeLauro asserted that
the Department's proposed definition of ``managers'' and
``supervisors'' as used in section 3(m)(2)(B) violates Congress's
intent because that section does not refer to the executive exemption.
However, the section 13(a)(1) executive exemption requires each of the
three tests--salary basis, salary threshold, and duties--to be met. The
proposed definition of ``manager'' and ``supervisor'' uses just one of
those criteria--the duties test. As the NPRM noted, this definition
therefore encompasses a different, broader group of employees than the
term ``executive'' as used in section 13(a)(1).
As for other commenters' suggestion to establish two different
salary levels, one for the executive exemption and one for managers and
supervisors excluded from tip pools, the Department concludes that this
would likely cause undue confusion in the regulated community.
Additionally, setting a separate compensation level, as suggested by
some commenters, could require periodic updates to Sec. 531.52 to
reflect inflation. Finally, there is no basis for applying a salary
level based on the restaurant industry to tipped employees in all
industries. For instance, the Department has not studied or received
comments on an appropriate salary level at which to exclude managers
and supervisors from tip pools in the cosmetology, casino, or cleaning-
service industries and therefore cannot reasonably predict the effects
imposing such a requirement would have in those industries. The
Department therefore declines to adopt these proposals and finalizes
this portion of Sec. 531.52 as proposed.
In sum, the Department concludes that the criteria in Sec. 531.52
effectively identify the managers and supervisors whom Congress sought
to prevent from
[[Page 86764]]
keeping other employees' tips. The Department believes that employers
can readily use these criteria to determine whether an employee is a
manager or supervisor because employers are generally familiar with the
longstanding regulations from which those criteria are drawn.
c. Comments Regarding Managerial Participation in Tip Pools
The Department also received several comments supporting the
language in Sec. 531.52 prohibiting employers ``from requiring
employees to share tips with managers and supervisors'' and the
language in Sec. 531.54 specifying that employers that do not take a
section 3(m)(2)(A) tip credit ``may not include supervisors and
managers'' in a tip pool.
Some commenters raised concerns, however, that the Department's
proposed regulations neither expressly prohibit nor expressly allow
managers or supervisors to retain tips they receive directly from
customers. For example, the National Restaurant Association and the
Bowling Proprietors' Association of America suggested that the
regulations clarify that the law does not prohibit supervisors or
managers from retaining tips they themselves receive directly from
customers. These commenters also requested that the Department allow
managers or supervisors who receive tips directly from customers to
share or pool tips with other managers or other nontipped employees.
The National Restaurant Association proposed that the prohibition
against managers and supervisors participating in a tip pool ``extend
only to those individuals receiving money from the pool or share, but
not to individuals who only contribute money into the pool or share.''
The Department agrees that section 3(m)(2)(B) permits a manager or
supervisor to keep a tip that he or she receives directly from a
customer for the service only he or she provides. The statute states
only that an ``employer may not keep tips received by its employees for
any purposes, including allowing managers or supervisors to keep any
portion of employees' tips'' and is implicitly stating that managers
and supervisors may not keep tips received by employees other than
themselves. A salon manager, for example, may keep tips left by
customers whose hair she personally styles. In response to commenters'
suggestions, the Department added language in finalized Sec.
531.52(b)(2) to make this clear: ``A manager or supervisor may keep
tips that he or she receives directly from customers based on the
service that he or she directly provides.''
With regard to tip pools, the Department notes that the
requirements of Sec. 531.54 only apply to those tip pools mandated by
employers. When a manager or supervisor who receives tips directly from
customers wishes to voluntarily ``tip out'' a portion of his or her
tips to other employees, that is not considered to be participation in
a tip pool and is not prohibited by the FLSA or the proposed
regulations. Voluntarily ``tipping out'' is different from an employer-
mandated tip pool. The Department believes that allowing managers and
supervisors to participate in tip pools for one purpose (contributing
tips) and not for another (receiving tips) would create confusion among
employers and employees. Furthermore, such a proposal could lead to
situations where it is difficult for employers to demonstrate
compliance with the prohibition on employees sharing tips with managers
and supervisors. Therefore, the Department declines to make such
changes in the final rule.
Finally, upon review, the Department realizes that it may have
unintentionally created confusion by not including language expressly
forbidding manager and supervisor participation in tip pools in
proposed Sec. 531.54(c), which applies to employers that take a
section 3(m)(2) tip credit. As the statutory text and proposed Sec.
531.52(b) make clear, no employer may require employees to share tips
with managers and supervisors--there is no distinction between
employers who do or do not take a tip credit. Therefore, the Department
will add a new Sec. 531.54(c)(3) that mirrors the language in proposed
Sec. 531.54(d): ``An employer may not participate in such a tip pool
and may not include managers and supervisors in the pool.'' The
Department otherwise finalizes as proposed the language in Sec. Sec.
531.52(b) and 531.54(d).
B. Tip Pooling--Section 531.54
The Department proposed to amend Sec. 531.54, which generally
addresses tip pooling, to reflect the CAA amendments. The Department
proposed to incorporate section 3(m)(2)(B)'s prohibition on employers
keeping tips, which applies regardless of whether the employer takes a
tip credit, into Sec. 531.54. The Department also proposed to amend
Sec. 531.54 to include the specific requirements that apply to
employers that establish mandatory tip pools, depending on whether the
employer does or does not take a tip credit, and depending on whether
the mandatory tip pool is a traditional pool limited to customarily and
regularly tipped employees or a nontraditional tip pool, which may
include employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips.
i. Requirements When an Employer Collects and Redistributes Tips--
Section 531.54(b)
In its proposed rule, the Department took the position that section
3(m)(2)(B) does not prohibit an employer from collecting tips received
by employees to facilitate a mandatory tip pool if the employer fully
redistributes the tips it collects no less often than when it pays
wages. In those circumstances, the employees' tips are only temporarily
within the employer's possession, and the employer does not ``keep''
the tips within the meaning of section 3(m)(2)(B). However, the
Department proposed that employers ``keep'' tips in violation of
section 3(m)(2)(B) when they collect tips but do not redistribute them
within this time period.
As proposed, Sec. 531.54(b)(1) covered employers that collect tips
to administer a tip pool and required those employers to fully
distribute any collected tips at the regular payday for the workweek,
or, for pay periods of more than one workweek, at the regular payday
for the period in which the particular workweek ends. Proposed Sec.
531.54(b) also required that, to the extent an employer could not
ascertain the amount of tips received or how tips should be distributed
before processing payroll, those tips be distributed to employees as
soon as practicable after the regular payday. As the Department
observed in the 2019 NPRM, these requirements align with current
guidance on how soon an employer must distribute to tipped employees
tips that were charged on credit cards. See WHD Opinion Letter
FLSA2006-1 (Jan. 13, 2006). Because proposed Sec. 531.54(b)(1) defined
``keep'' within the confines of section 3(m)(2)(B), the requirement
that an employer fully and promptly distribute any tips it collects
would have applied regardless of whether the employer took a tip credit
and regardless of the type of tip pool the employer administered.
The Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry expressed support
for proposed Sec. 531.54(b)(1). Restaurant owners who submitted
comments as part of a comment campaign also expressed general support
for ``the proposed changes regarding tip pooling,'' noting that they
``closely track the new statutory language.'' Accordingly, the
Department adopts
[[Page 86765]]
Sec. 531.54(b)(1) as proposed, but separates it into two paragraphs,
(b)(1) and (2).
ii. Additional Requirements for Mandatory Tip Pools When an Employer
Takes a Tip Credit--Section 531.54(c)
Proposed Sec. 531.54(c) sets forth the tip pooling requirements
for employers that take a tip credit. As explained in the 2019 NPRM,
the Department's approach to those employers remains unchanged because
the CAA did not amend the substance of what is now section 3(m)(2)(A),
which applies to those employers. Accordingly, proposed Sec. 531.54(c)
would retain the Department's existing requirements in Sec. 531.54 but
would clarify that these requirements apply only to employers that take
a tip credit. Those existing requirements state that those employers
that take a tip credit can require tipped employees to contribute tips
to a tip pool only if the pool's membership is limited to employees who
customarily and regularly receive tips.
Proposed Sec. 531.54(c)'s requirements are drawn directly from
section 3(m)(2)(A) of the FLSA--formerly numbered section 3(m)--which
has imposed the same tip pooling, notice, and tip retention
requirements on employers that take a tip credit since 1974. The
Department thus adopts Sec. 531.54(c) as proposed.
iii. Nontraditional Tip Pools When an Employer Does Not Take a Tip
Credit--Sections 531.52, 531.54, and 531.59
In 2011, the Department revised its tip regulations to require that
tipped employees retain the tips that they receive, except those
distributed through a tip pool comprising solely employees who
customarily and regularly receive tips. The Department applied this
interpretation to all employers of tipped employees, regardless of
whether they took a tip credit. See 29 CFR 531.52, 531.54, and 531.59
(2011).
Through the CAA, Congress suspended portions of Sec. Sec. 531.52,
531.54, and 531.59 that restricted employers that do not take a tip
credit from instituting nontraditional tip pools. See CAA, Div. S, Tit.
XII, sec. 1201(c). As a result, since the CAA's effective date,
employers that do not claim a tip credit have been permitted to
implement mandatory nontraditional tip pools that include both tipped
and nontipped employees. See FAB No. 2018-3 (Apr. 6. 2018).
Consistent with these amendments, the Department proposed to revise
its regulations to remove certain restrictions on employers that do not
claim a tip credit (and therefore pay workers a direct cash wage of at
least the minimum wage), including those prohibiting them from
instituting mandatory nontraditional tip pools. These restrictions were
based on what is now section 3(m)(2)(A) of the FLSA, which the
Department previously concluded neither limits employers that do not
take a tip credit nor grants authority to the Department to do so. See
Resps.' Br. at 13, Nat'l Rest. Ass'n v. Dept. of Labor, No. 16-920
(U.S.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 2697 (2018); see also 82 FR 57399. In
particular, the Department proposed to rescind the congressionally-
suspended language in Sec. 531.52 that bars employers from
establishing mandatory nontraditional tip pools, ``whether or not it
takes a tip credit,'' and to make additional clarifying edits; to
revise Sec. 531.54 to clarify that the restrictions and notice
requirements for tip pools apply only to employers that take a tip
credit; and to revise Sec. 531.59 to state that the bar on mandatory
nontraditional tip pools applies only to employers that take a tip
credit. See 84 FR 53976-77. The Department also proposed to make
explicit in Sec. 531.54 that an employer that pays its tipped
employees the full minimum wage and does not take a tip credit may
impose a mandatory tip pooling arrangement that includes dishwashers,
cooks, or other employees who are not employed in an occupation in
which employees customarily and regularly receive tips, as long as that
arrangement does not include any employer, supervisor, or manager. See
84 FR 53976.
A number of commenters addressed the Department's proposal to allow
employers that do not take a tip credit to mandate nontraditional tip
pools. Commenters including the NFIB, Bloomin' Brands, Littler, and
several individuals, supported the proposal, noting that it reflects
the realities of tipped workplaces and is fairer to nontipped
employees. As Bloomin' Brands stated, ``it takes an entire team,''
including employees in occupations that do not customarily and
regularly receive tips, to give customers ``the total quality
experience necessary to earn a tip.'' Littler stated that
nontraditional tip pools are especially helpful where state law
precludes employers from taking a tip credit, and tipped employees who
continue to earn tips on top of their wages would otherwise ``earn far
more than their nontipped coworkers.''
In contrast, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid and some individual
commenters opposed allowing employers that do not take a tip credit to
institute mandatory nontraditional tip pools, arguing that this
arrangement is contrary to what customers intend when they leave a tip
and unfair to tipped employees. At least one of these commenters,
however, appears to have misunderstood that the Department's proposal
requires an employer to pay a tipped employee the full Federal minimum
wage before the employer can require the employee to participate in a
mandatory tip pool or other similar arrangement that includes one or
more nontipped employees. Texas RioGrande Legal Aid also opposed the
removal of language in Sec. 531.52 stating that the customer ``has the
right to determine who shall be the recipient'' of a tip.
Other commenters, including those who did not oppose mandatory
nontraditional tip pools as a general matter, expressed concern that an
employer that institutes a mandatory nontraditional tip pool could
conceivably reduce the cash wages it pays to nontipped employees, such
as cooks and dishwashers, who receive tips from the pool. See, e.g.,
ROC, NELP, and Policy Integrity. The Department had acknowledged this
possibility in the economic analysis accompanying the NPRM. See 84 FR
53968. NELP and other commenters asked the Department to prohibit
employers from taking advantage of nontraditional tip pools to pay
lower cash wages to nontipped employees, asserting that those actions
would be inconsistent with 3(m)(2)(B)'s prohibition on employers'
keeping tips. Policy Integrity acknowledged, however, that it would be
``difficult to design a rule'' to accomplish this end.
Finally, Senator Murray and Representative DeLauro recommended that
the Department require employers to institute a ``democratic process''
to obtain the consent of tipped employees before instituting
nontraditional tip pools. They asserted that such a safeguard would
ensure that employers are not keeping employees' tips.
After considering the comments, the Department adopts without
modification the changes it proposed to Sec. Sec. 531.52, 531.54, and
531.59, which allow employers that do not take a tip credit to
implement mandatory nontraditional tip pools, as long as those tip
pools do not include employers, managers, or supervisors. These changes
are consistent with the 2018 amendments to the FLSA and the text of
section 3(m)(2) as a whole. Section 3(m)(2)(A) expressly prohibits
employers that take a tip credit from including employees that do not
customarily and regularly receive tips in mandatory tip pools together
with employees that do, but it does not place
[[Page 86766]]
this prohibition on employers that do not take a tip credit. In
addition, as commenters noted, the revised regulations will afford
employers flexibility to reward nontipped employees who contribute to
the customers' experience and incentivize tipped and nontipped
employees alike to improve that experience.\10\ As finalized,
Sec. Sec. 531.52, 531.54, and 531.59 expressly allow employers that do
not claim a tip credit to implement a mandatory tip pool that includes
both employees who receive tips and employees who do not ''customarily
and regularly'' receive tips. However, that tip pool may not include
any employer, manager, or supervisor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Given this flexibility afforded to employers to reward
nontipped employees, the Department need not resolve disagreement
between commenters as to whether customers tip based only on the
specific performance of one or more tipped employees or, instead, on
an assessment of the customer's broader experience. The intention(s)
behind individual customers' tipping likely varies depending on
context, customer, and circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department declines to require that employers institute a
process to obtain consent from tipped employees before including them
in a mandatory nontraditional tip pool. Nothing in section 3(m)(2)
predicates the imposition of a tip pool on employee consent, and there
is no textual basis for creating such a requirement with respect to
only a nontraditional tip pool. Not only is there no textual basis for
such a requirement, a bill introduced to impose such a requirement was
neither passed, nor its substance incorporated into the CAA. See H.R.
5180, 115th Cong. (2d Sess. 2018). Additionally, this recommendation is
outside of the proposed changes, and the public has not had the
opportunity to comment on its merits or feasibility.
The Department also declines to modify its proposal in response to
commenters' concern that an employer could reduce the cash wages paid
to a nontipped employee who participates in a nontraditional tip pool.
What matters is not nontipped employees' cash wages, but rather their
overall compensation, which includes both cash wages and tips that they
may now receive under this final rule. Employers can already reduce
nontipped employees' overall compensation by lowering cash wages, but
this requires tradeoffs: Morale and productivity would fall, and it
would become more difficult to recruit and retain qualified workers.
Allowing nontraditional tip pools does not alter these tradeoffs and
thus would not make employers more able or willing to reduce nontipped
employees' overall compensation. While employers that share tips with
nontipped employees under this rule could reduce cash wages paid to
those same employees, economic reality makes it unlikely that they
would do so in a way that reduces overall compensation unless the
employer was already able and willing to reduce the employees' overall
compensation for reasons unrelated to this rule.
On the other hand, the nontraditional tip pools allowed under this
rule give employers a new way to increase nontipped employees' overall
compensation and thereby improve morale, productivity, recruitment, and
retention. Some employers will do so by keeping nontipped employees'
cash wages the same while allowing them to share in tips. Others may
reduce cash wages but share tips that, on average, more than offset the
reduction in cash wages so that the net effect on overall compensation
will be positive. Regardless of the approach, a nontipped employee's
overall compensation will increase.
Additionally, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to develop
and enforce a prohibition on employers' adjusting a nontipped
employee's cash wage when the employer complies with the FLSA's minimum
wage and overtime requirements. Given the fungible nature of money and
the innumerable lawful reasons why an employer might set, raise,
reduce, or maintain an employee's compensation, it would be difficult
to distinguish between lawful reductions to compensation and unlawful
``keeping'' of ``tips received by its employees.'' And although
nontraditional tip pooling arrangements may affect pay decisions for
nontipped workers who participate in a nontraditional pool--including
by allowing employers to pay a lower cash wage to retain or hire an
employee in the non-tipped position--the Department disagrees with
commenters' claims that any benefit an employer receives from a
mandatory tip pool constitutes ``keeping'' tips in violation of
3(m)(2)(B). Indeed, for decades in what is currently section
3(m)(2)(A), Congress has expressly authorized mandatory traditional tip
pools that afford employers similar indirect benefits. Congress also
implicitly authorized these nontraditional tip pools when it suspended
the Department's regulations prohibiting them, undercutting any claim
that such tip pools were actually prohibited by the CAA.
Ultimately, the Department believes that employers will rarely
reduce the cash wages of nontipped employees who participate in a
nontraditional tip pool. Economic realities limit employers' practical
ability to reduce compensation significantly and simultaneously retain
employees. Further, employers are constrained by wage and hour laws.
Because back-of-the-house and other employees who receive tips through
a nontraditional tip pool are not employed in an occupation in which
they customarily and regularly receive tips, an employer may not take a
tip credit for these workers, and must pay them at least the full
Federal minimum wage. See 29 U.S.C. 203(m)(2), 206(a); see also S. Rep.
No. 93-690, at 43 (1974); WHD Opinion Letter FLSA2008-18 (Dec. 19,
2008). And, in many workplaces, state and local laws require employers
to pay nontipped workers a minimum wage that exceeds the Federal
minimum wage.
Further, though employers could theoretically do so, an ability
under the rule to decrease nontipped employees' wages is unlikely, by
itself, to motivate an employer to adopt a nontraditional tip pool. An
employer that currently takes a tip credit that institutes a
nontraditional tip pool would lose the tip credit and be required to
pay tipped workers at least the full minimum wage. Accordingly, the
wage obligations required under a nontraditional tip pool could result
in an increased transfer from employers to employees.
Finally, the Department declines to restore to Sec. 531.52 the
statement that a customer ``has the right to determine who shall be the
recipient'' of a tip. This language is confusing in the context of
section 3(m)(2) and the Department's tip regulations, which expressly
permit employers to require employees to pool tips with each other
regardless of which employee or employees the customer intended to
receive the tip.
For these reasons, the Department finalizes the relevant changes to
Sec. Sec. 531.52, 531.54, and 531.59 as proposed. An employer may
implement a nontraditional tip pool that includes tipped and nontipped
employees, provided the pool does not include any employers, managers,
or supervisors, and so long as the employer does not take a tip credit
and pays the full minimum wage to both the tipped employees who
contribute to the pool and the nontipped employees who receive tips
from the pool.
C. Recordkeeping Requirements for Employers That Have Employees Who
Receive Tips--Section 516.28
Section 516.28 imposes certain recordkeeping requirements on only
those employers that take a tip credit. Among other things, Sec.
516.28(a) requires
[[Page 86767]]
that the employer identify each employee for whom the employer takes a
tip credit (see Sec. 516.28(a)(1)) and maintain records regarding the
weekly or monthly amount of tips received, as reported by the employee
to the employer (see Sec. 516.28(a)(2)). The employer may use
information on IRS Form 4070 (Employee's Report of Tips to Employer) to
satisfy the requirements under Sec. 516.28(a)(2).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For information regarding IRS Form 4070, see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/tip-recordkeeping-and-reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department proposed revisions to the recordkeeping requirements
in Sec. 516.28 to improve consistent and effective administration of
section 3(m)(2)(B). The revisions would require similar recordkeeping
requirements for employers that do not take a tip credit but still
collect employees' tips to operate a mandatory tip pool. Proposed Sec.
516.28(b)(1) would require these employers to identify on their payroll
records each employee who receives tips. Proposed Sec. 516.28(b)(2)
would also require those employers to keep records of the weekly or
monthly amount of tips received by each employee, as reported by the
employee to the employer (this may consist of reports from the
employees to the employer on IRS Form 4070).
The Department received only two comments concerning the proposed
recordkeeping requirements for employers that do not take a tip credit
but still collect employees' tips to operate a mandatory tip pool. One
commenter recommended that the Department require additional
recordkeeping beyond the proposed requirements, while the other argued
that the proposed recordkeeping was not required. The proposed
recordkeeping requirements would help the Department determine whether
employers are complying with their tip pooling obligations.
Accordingly, the Department adopts the addition of Sec. Sec.
516.29(b)(1) and 516.28(b)(2) as proposed.
D. Dual Jobs--Section 531.56(e)
i. Summary of the Final Rule
Section 531.56(e) addresses instances in which an employer employs
an employee in both a tipped occupation, for which the employer may
take a tip credit, and a non-tipped occupation, for which the employer
may not take a tip credit. The Department proposed to amend Sec.
531.56(e) to codify its recent subregulatory guidance regarding when an
employer can take a tip credit for hours that a tipped employee
performs non-tipped duties related to his or her tipped occupation. See
WHD Opinion Letter FLSA2018-27 (Nov. 8, 2018); FAB No. 2019-2 (Feb. 15,
2019). Before it was amended to reflect this recent guidance, the FOH
had stated that an employer may not take a tip credit for non-tipped
duties related to an employee's tipped occupation if the time spent on
those duties exceeds 20 percent of the employee's workweek. As
described above, stakeholders and courts sometimes referred to this
guidance as the ``80/20 rule,'' although it was not, in fact, a
regulation. However, as the Department observed in the NPRM, this
policy was difficult for employers to administer and led to confusion,
in part because the guidance did not explain how employers could
determine whether a particular non-tipped duty is ``related'' to the
tip-producing occupation and in part because the monitoring surrounding
the 80/20 approach on individual duties was onerous for employers.
The final rule, which (with the exception of two changes) adopts
the changes to Sec. 531.56(e) as proposed and clarifies, consistent
with the Department's current guidance, that an employer may take a tip
credit for all non-tipped duties an employee performs that meet two
requirements. First, the duties must be related to the employee's
tipped occupation; second, the employee must perform the related duties
contemporaneously with the tip-producing activities or within a
reasonable time immediately before or after the tipped activities. This
updated approach to the related-duties standard is consistent with the
plain text of the FLSA, which permits employers to take a tip credit
based on whether an employee is engaged in a tipped ``occupation,'' not
on whether the employee is performing certain kinds of duties within
the tipped occupation.
To facilitate the administration of this approach, the final rule
also complements the examples already in Sec. 531.56(e) by adopting
the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) as a source of guidance
for determining when a tipped employee's non-tipped duties are related
to his or her tipped occupation. As explained in more detail below, the
final rule states that a non-tipped duty is presumed to be related to a
tip-producing occupation if it is listed as a task of the tip-producing
occupation in O*NET. As the Department explained in the NPRM, O*NET is
a comprehensive database of worker attributes and job characteristics,
and is available to the public at www.onetonline.org. O*NET includes
information on work activities for more than 900 occupations based on
the Standard Occupational Classification system, a statistical standard
used by Federal agencies to classify workers into occupational
categories for the purpose of collecting, calculating, or disseminating
data.
ii. Comments Regarding the Updated Related Duties Approach
The Department received many comments expressing support for the
proposed changes to Sec. 531.56(e). Those commenters suggested that
the updated related duties approach is a substantial improvement over
the 80/20 approach because it is more consistent with the FLSA's text,
structure, and purpose; and it is a more practical and administrable
approach. See, e.g., Inspire Brands; the Center for Workplace
Compliance; Littler Mendelson.
On the first point, several commenters observed that the
Department's proposal aligns the tip credit regulations with the plain
language of the FLSA. For example, Littler stated that ``the FLSA says
nothing about slicing an employee's duties into creditable and non-
creditable categories, nor does it say anything about capping an
employee's related duties at 20%.'' Instead, the statutory language
``suggests that all work within the tipped occupation is eligible for a
credit--not just some arbitrary percentage of the work.'' Inspire
Brands stated that the Department's proposal parallels other FLSA
regulations. In particular, ``in the context of the FLSA's white collar
exemptions, the Department long ago abandoned any notion that employees
must spend a specific amount of time performing exempt work to qualify
for an exemption.'' See 29 CFR 541.700(b) (``The amount of time spent
performing exempt work can be a useful guide . . . , [but] time alone .
. . is not the sole test'').\12\ Inspire Brands also stated that the
Department's proposal best approximates ``what Congress intended to
achieve when it first amended the FLSA to include tip credit rules.
Specifically, when Congress amended sections 203(m) and 203(t) in 1966,
it did so to permit `the continuance of existing practices with respect
to tips' in the hotel and restaurant industries[,] S. Rep. No. 89-1487
(1966),'' and there was no evidence that employers in 1966 had an
``existing practice'' of paying servers or bartenders full minimum
wages whenever related non-tipped duties exceeded a specific time
limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Department maintains a proportion-of-time standard in
other contexts. That standard is not appropriate in the dual jobs
context because of the fluid nature of the work required in many
tipped occupations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 86768]]
On the second point, a number of commenters observed that the
Department's proposal is easier to administer than the 80/20 approach.
Employers noted they will no longer feel that they have to try to track
their employees minute by minute or task by task. Nor will they have to
wrestle with which duties are related to their employees' tipped work.
Instead, they can refer to the list of tasks for that occupation in
O*NET. An employer that does so may take a tip credit for the
employee's entire shift (as long as any non-tipped duties are performed
contemporaneously with or for a reasonable time immediately before or
after tipped work). This approach increases compliance, reduces
employer costs, and avoids litigation. See, e.g., Littler; Center for
Workplace Compliance; Inspire Brands; Bloomin' Brands; cf. Pellon v.
Bus. Representation Int'l, Inc., 528 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1314 (S.D. Fla.
2007), aff'd, 291 F. App'x 310 (11th Cir. 2008) (describing the
practical difficulties of administering the contrary 80/20 approach).
Inspire Brands stated that under the proposed rule, employers will no
longer need to devote significant time to monitoring duties performed
by tipped employees or tracking employees' time spent on various
specific duties, and ``in the place of such activities,'' supervisors
will be able to spend ``more time tending to customers'' and helping
servers and bartenders with non-tipped work, such as cleaning tables
and stocking stations. Since a tipped employee ``would have otherwise
performed such tasks,'' Inspire Brands also stated that tipped
employees will be able to ``use that time savings to interact with
customers and generate more in tips.'' Bloomin' Brands noted that the
proposal remedied a ``particularly unrealistic unintended consequence''
of the existing regulation, which required employers to ``evaluate[ ] a
tipped employee's entitlement to the tip credit on a task-by-task
basis.'' Littler commended the Department's proposal for ``solv[ing] .
. . in one stroke'' the monitoring problems associated with the 80/20
approach. The Center for Workplace Compliance stated that by ``not
focusing on the specific amount of time spent on various tasks,'' the
proposal ``will be easier to understand and will make compliance
simpler.''
The Department also received several comments skeptical of or
opposed to its proposal or recommending that the Department adopt a
different approach. The National Restaurant Association, for example,
suggested that the Department loosen the proposed limitations on non-
tipped work and ``specify in the Final Rule that so long as [non-
tipped] work occurs during the same shift or workday in which the
employee engages in the main duties of a tipped occupation, the tip
credit is available for the entire shift or workday.'' In contrast,
several commenters, including those representing employees, 19 State
Attorneys General, and Democratic Members of Congress, expressed
concern that the updated related duties approach was not sufficiently
stringent and would allow an employer to take a tip credit even when a
tipped employee spends a substantial amount of time performing non-
tipped work. These commenters urged the Department to return to the 80/
20 approach (or adopt a more protective standard), and stated that a
return to the 80/20 approach would be more workable than the proposed
approach. They also argued that the Department has not sufficiently
explained why the new standard would be more easily administrable than
the 80/20 approach.
In addition, Senator Murray and Representative DeLauro asserted
that the Department's proposal violates newly added section 3(m)(2)(B),
which prohibits employers from keeping any portion of employees' tips
for any purposes. They contended that to read section 3(m)(2)(B) as
permitting a tip credit for any time an employee spends on non-tipped
duties (whether related or unrelated) would produce an ``absurd
result''; that is, it would allow employers to reassign non-tipped
workers' duties to tipped workers and use tips to fulfill their minimum
wage obligations for that work.
After considering the comments, the Department finalizes Sec.
531.56(e)(2) as proposed (with the exception of one word that was
changed for consistency). The Department disagrees that the updated
related duties test allows an employer to take a tip credit when a
tipped employee performs a substantial amount of non-tipped work and
agrees with other commenters that a return to the 80/20 approach would
be unwise for several reasons.
First, the updated related duties test does not permit employers to
take a tip credit when tipped employees are, in fact, engaged in a non-
tipped occupation. Instead, an employer may take a tip credit for non-
tipped related duties only when those duties are performed
``contemporaneously with or for a reasonable time immediately before or
after'' tipped work. As a result, when a tipped employee engages in a
substantial amount of separate, non-tipped related duties, such that he
or she has effectively ceased to be engaged in a tipped occupation, the
tip credit is no longer available. Thus, an employer could not take a
tip credit for the entire shift when a tipped employee spends ``five
hours, or more'' of a 6-hour shift doing non-tipped work, see NELA, nor
could it claim the tip credit for all hours worked by a dishwasher who
picks up a few serving shifts per week, see Patriotic Millionaires. In
these examples, the employee would not be performing the non-tipped
related duties contemporaneously with or for a reasonable time
immediately before or after performing tipped work. By contrast, an
employer of an employee who has significant non-tipped related duties
which are inextricably intertwined with their tipped duties should not
be forced to account for the time that employee spends doing those
intertwined duties. Rather, such duties are generally properly
considered a part of the employee's tipped occupation, as is consistent
with the statute.
Second, the Department disagrees that the proposed rule's language
is not specific enough to furnish useful guidance. The requirement that
related duties be performed contemporaneously with tipped duties is not
difficult to administer in practice. For example, a barber who cleans
the combs she is using as she is cutting a customer's hair is
performing that duty during the same time as--contemporaneously with--
the tip-producing work. The regulatory term ``contemporaneously'' does
not necessarily mean that the employee must perform tipped and non-
tipped duties at the exact same moment in time.
Moreover, the allowance for related duties performed ``for a
reasonable time immediately before or after'' a tipped duty creates a
sufficiently intelligible distinction between employees engaged in
tipped occupations and non-tipped occupations. It is true that this
limit does not create as bright a line as a firm cap on the amount of
time an employee may spend on particular duties (although the 80/20
approach creates significantly greater uncertainty in other ways as
discussed below). But the concept of reasonableness is a cornerstone of
modern common law and is familiar to employers in a variety of
contexts. See, e.g., Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680,
687-88 (1946) (factfinder may base FLSA back wages award on reasonable
estimates); 29 CFR 825.302(a) (requiring employee to furnish notice of
need for FMLA leave ``as soon as practicable''); 42 U.S.C. 12112(a),
(b)(5)(A) (requiring reasonable accommodations for disabled employees);
29 U.S.C. 1108(b)(2), (c)(2) (ERISA fiduciaries are entitled to
[[Page 86769]]
receive reasonable compensation from a plan for services provided); 29
CFR 1604.11(a) (conduct is sexual harassment if it unreasonably
interferes with an individual's work performance); Burlington N. & S.F.
Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 67-68 (2006) (Title VII prohibits
employers from taking actions that a reasonable employee would find to
be materially adverse); Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S.
742, 765 (1998) (employer is vicariously liable under Title VII unless
it took reasonable steps to prevent and correct harassing behavior);
Green v. Brennan, 136 S. Ct. 1769, 1776-78 (2016) (constructive
discharge occurs when a reasonable employee would feel compelled to
resign). Reasonableness balances a flexible accounting of circumstances
with a sufficiently definite limit on acceptable conduct in those
contexts. This flexible approach is appropriate to apply to the
question of whether particular duties are a part of an employee's
tipped occupation.
For example, consider the following scenario: A hotel bellhop
continuously performs tipped duties such as carrying luggage to guests'
rooms during a busy 8-hour shift and then works for an additional 2
hours performing related non-tipped duties such as cleaning,
organizing, and maintaining bag carts in storage. The 2 hours of
related non-tipped duties would not be ``for a reasonable time'' after
the performance of tipped duties. Accordingly, the bellhop was engaged
in a tipped occupation (bellhop) for 8 hours and a non-tipped
occupation (cleaner) for 2 hours.
On the other hand, consider a second scenario in which this hotel
employee works a 10-hour shift that is less busy. Because there are
fewer hotel guests to assist, there are times during the bellhop's
shift when he is not transporting bags for customers. Rather, every
hour, he transports bags for customers for approximately 48 minutes and
in between transporting bags, spends approximately 12 minutes
performing related non-tipped duties, such as sweeping and mopping the
entrance and cleaning bag carts. At the end of the shift, the employee
in this scenario would have spent a total of 8 hours on tipped duties
and 2 hours on non-tipped related duties--the same amounts as in the
first scenario. But unlike in the first scenario, each period of
related non-tipped duties would have been performed ``for a reasonable
time immediately before or after'' the performance of tipped duties. As
such, the employee would have been engaged in a tipped occupation
(bellhop) for the entire 10-hour shift.
Even though the two above scenarios are different, the previous 80/
20 approach drew no distinction between them because it focused solely
on the precise ratio of time spent on tipped versus related non-tipped
duties. But that focus obscures the relevant question of whether an
employee is functionally engaged in one occupation or two. To answer
this question, it is necessary to examine the context in which time is
spent on tipped versus related non-tipped duties. If tipped and related
non-tipped duties were performed at distinct times that never overlap,
the employee would be engaged in two distinct occupations, even if the
tipped-to-related-non-tipped ratio were more than 80/20. Conversely, if
tipped and related non-tipped duties were performed alongside each
other, the employee would be engaged in a single occupation, even if
the tipped-to-related-non-tipped ratio were less than 80/20. The final
rule's ``reasonable time'' standard considers the critical context in
which tipped and related non-tipped duties are performed and focuses on
the key issue of whether non-tipped duties form a substantial,
segregable part of an employee's work. The 80/20 approach does not
adequately address this issue.
Third, the guidance establishing the 80/20 approach did not
adequately consider the practical difficulties in complying with a hard
quantitative cap. To do so, employers attempted to track the amount of
time employees spend performing duties that are not tip-producing but
are related to each employee's tipped occupation. See Littler. But as
several commenters explained, this proved extremely difficult, if not
impossible. Inspire Brands, for example, stated that it implemented
policies within its timekeeping system intended to allow employees to
switch between different job codes when engaging in different duties,
but found that doing so ``required substantial managerial resources''
and that it was impossible to ``keep track of tipped versus non-tipped
duties at such a micro level.'' Another commenter representing
employers stated, ``[t]imekeeping systems are not designed to deal with
that level of granularity,'' nor ``do tipped employees' jobs allow them
sufficient time to constantly clock in under a different code when
finishing one task but before starting another.'' This is especially
true ``when the tasks are often measured in seconds and are frequently
part of a `multi-tasking' approach.'' See Johnson Jackson. The
practical difficulties of complying with the 80/20 approach are also
evident in case law. For example, as the District Court for the
Southern District of Florida observed in a decision affirmed by the
Eleventh Circuit, the non-tipped duties performed by the employees at
issue were so ``intertwined with indirect tip-producing tasks
throughout the day'' that determining precisely how much time was spent
on non-tipped related duties was indeed ``infeasible.'' Pellon, 528 F.
Supp. 2d at 1314.
The updated related duties test, in contrast, does not require
employers to attempt a minute-by-minute accounting of tipped employees'
work to ensure that non-tipped related work does not exceed a
quantitative cap. Each employee can instead perform the related, non-
tipped work of his or her tipped occupation as needed in conjunction
with his or her tipped work--either contemporaneously with or for a
reasonable time immediately before or after the tipped work--and
employers may confidently take a tip credit without precisely tracking
the time spent by the employee as he or she moves between duties.
Fourth, the 80/20 approach was difficult to administer because it
required employers to distinguish with precision between non-tipped
duties (which were subject to the 20 percent cap) and tipped duties
(which were not). In general, determining whether a duty is tip-
producing is straightforward; WHD and courts ask whether the task
involves direct interaction with customers. See WHD Opinion Letter
FLSA2018-27 (referring to tipped duties as those ``involv[ing] direct
customer service''); Barnhart v. Chesapeake Bay Seafood House Assocs.,
L.L.C., No. CV JFM-16-01277, 2017 WL 1196580, at *6 (D. Md. Mar. 31,
2017) (``tasks that involve direct customer interaction would fall
squarely into the tip-producing category, and tasks that are not
customer-facing would not''); Belt v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc.,
401 F. Supp. 3d 512, 519-20 (E.D. Pa. 2019) (considering tasks that
``did not involve interacting with, nor serving food and beverages to
customers'' to be untipped work). But the 80/20 approach requires
precision, not generality, and, as commenters noted, the precise minute
when an employee ceases to perform a tip-producing duty and begins
performing a non-tipped, related duty (and vice-versa) is not always
clear. See, e.g., Inspire Brands. One court, for example, observed that
applying the 80/20 approach to the plaintiff skycaps, who ``me[t]
airline travelers at the curb and assist[ed] them with their luggage,''
would require it to determine, ``for instance, how far from the curb
could
[[Page 86770]]
Plaintiffs even walk before they are too far to be considered tipped
employees[.]'' Pellon, 528 F. Supp. 2d at 1315.
The updated related duties approach adopted in this final rule
continues to distinguish between tip producing and non-tip producing
duties. But because the updated test eschews a numerical analysis, it
no longer requires precise parsing of whether tasks performed in close
conjunction with one another are tipped duties or are non-tipped
related duties that must be aggregated against a 20 percent cap.
Instead, an employer may take a tip credit whether an employee is
performing a tipped duty or is performing a related duty
contemporaneously with or for a reasonable time immediately before or
after tipped duties. In addition, as discussed further below, by using
O*NET to identify duties related to the tipped occupation, courts will
be able to better and more consistently apply the dual jobs regulation.
Fifth, the Department disagrees that the 80/20 approach is more
administrable than the proposed rule. An 80/20 approach may well be
easy to administer once the precise amount of time an employee has
spent on various tasks has been tabulated, but it is the categorizing
of tasks and tracking of each employee's time that makes the 80/20
approach difficult to administer.
Sixth, the updated related duties test better effectuates the text
of section 3(m) than did the 80/20 approach. Section 3(m) permits
employers to take a tip credit based on whether an employee is engaged
in a tipped ``occupation,'' not whether the employee is performing
certain kinds of duties or tasks within the tipped occupation. See 29
U.S.C. 203(m) and (t). Because the 80/20 approach imposed a hard cap on
related non-tipped work, regardless of the context, applying this
policy sometimes precluded an employer from taking the tip credit, even
for time when a tipped employee arguably continued to be engaged in his
or her tipped ``occupation.'' By permitting the tip credit for the time
an employee spends performing non-tipped related duties
contemporaneously with or for a reasonable time immediately before or
after tipped work, the updated approach better approximates the point
at which a tipped employee has ceased to be engaged in his or her
tipped occupation and becomes engaged in a non-tipped occupation.
The updated related duties test also draws this line more
effectively than the alternative proposed by the National Restaurant
Association, which would permit an employer to take a tip credit for a
full shift when an employee performs any tipped work during the course
of the shift. For example, under that approach an employer could take a
tip credit for the entire shift of a cook or dishwasher whom it had
directed to perform a token amount of tipped work during the shift.\13\
This is inconsistent with the commonsense understanding of the
statutory term ``occupation'' in the FLSA, which permits an employer to
take a tip credit only for the hours that an employee spends working in
a tipped occupation, not for all hours worked by an employee who spends
part of his or her time working in a tipped occupation. Removing the
rigid 20 percent limitation, but permitting an employer to take a tip
credit for time spent on non-tipped work only when that work is related
to the tipped occupation and performed in conjunction with tipped work,
reasonably interprets the statutory text while striking a balance that
is both protective of employees and manageable for employers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The employee would also need to earn at least $30 per month
in tips to meet the full criteria set forth in 29 U.S.C. 203(t).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seventh, it is not clear what time frame should be used to
determine compliance with the 80/20 approach. As commenters noted,
there was confusion with how the 80/20 approach would be determined on
a workweek basis. Nor is it clear whether a workweek approach would, in
the dual jobs context, produce results consistent with the FLSA's
language that allows an employer to take a tip credit based on hours
worked, not a workweek. Consider a casino that requires its card
dealers to make periodic security rounds at their pit in order to allow
other employees to focus fully on the tip-producing work of dealing.
Over the course of an 8-hour shift each week, a card dealer is required
to make six half-hour rounds monitoring gaming tables to ensure the
security of the game (for a total of 3 hours over the course of her
shift). The hours she spends monitoring gaming tables constitute more
than 20 percent of her shift devoted to non-tipped related duties, but
less than 20 percent of her workweek. If the workweek were applied as
the standard of measurement, then the casino would be permitted to take
a tip credit for the time spent on security rounds--even if that task
consumed a substantial portion of the card dealer's designated work day
that she could have devoted to tip-producing work. If the 80/20
approach were applied on a shift basis, the employer would be denied
the tip credit for all eight hours the employee worked even though she
was working in her tipped occupation for the entire shift. This lack of
clarity and potential for unintended outcomes counsels against
continued use of the 80/20 approach and in favor of the updated related
duties test.
Eighth, the Department disagrees with some commenters' argument
that the updated related duties approach violates section 3(m)(2)(B) by
allowing employers to use tips to meet their minimum wage obligations
for non-tipped work. Section 3 of the FLSA makes clear that an employer
that takes a tip credit in compliance with section 3(m)(2)(A) does not
``keep'' tips in violation of section 3(m)(2)(B). This is because the
two sections must be read in harmony with each other to avoid internal
contradiction. Section 3(m)(2)(A) permits an employer to take a tip
credit for ``tipped employee[s],'' defined under section 3(t) as those
``engaged in an occupation'' in which they ``customarily and regularly
receive tips.'' When a tipped employee performs non-tipped duties
related to the employee's tipped occupation either contemporaneously
with or for a reasonable time immediately before or after the
employee's tipped duties, the employee continues to be ``engaged'' in
the tipped occupation under section 3(t). As a result, an employer that
takes a tip credit for this time does so in compliance with section
3(m)(2)(A) and thus does not violate section 3(m)(2)(B).
As long as an employee's direct cash wage plus tips equals the
minimum wage (and the employer has met the other criteria for taking a
tip credit) section 6 of the FLSA is satisfied. If tipped employees do
not receive sufficient tips to cover the minimum wage, the employer
must supplement the cash wage payment. Compliance with the FLSA's
minimum wage requirement, therefore, requires sufficient tip-generating
activity to satisfy that minimum wage obligation. It is consistent with
the FLSA for an employer to use tips to cover an employee's non-tipped
work that is related to the tipped occupation, so long as that employee
is engaged in a tipped occupation when performing the non-tipped work
and earns at least the minimum wage for all hours worked. This is the
exact result envisioned by the FLSA's scheme of satisfying the minimum
wage with a mixture of a direct cash wage and tips.
Ninth, the Department disagrees with commenters' suggestions that a
return to the 80/20 approach is appropriate given that some Federal
courts have concluded the Department did not sufficiently explain its
reasoning for the updated related duties test in its 2018
[[Page 86771]]
subregulatory guidance. See Williams v. Bob Evans Rests., LLC, No. 18-
01353, 2020 WL 4692504, at *9 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 13, 2020); Reynolds v.
Chesapeake & Del. Brewing Holdings, LLC, No. 19-2184, 2020 WL 2404904
(E.D. Pa. May 12, 2020); Sicklesmith v. Hershey Entm't & Resorts Co.,
No. 19-1675, 2020 WL 902544 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 25, 2020); O'Neal v. Denn-
Ohio, LLC, No. 19-280, 2020 WL 210801 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2020); Belt,
401 F. Supp. 3d at 512; Spencer v. Macado's, Inc., 399 F. Supp. 3d 545
(W.D. Va. 2019); Cope v. Let's Eat Out, Inc., 354 F. Supp. 3d 976 (W.D.
Miss. 2019); Esry v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., 373 F. Supp. 3d
1205 (E.D. Ark. 2019); Berger v. Perry's Steakhouse of Ill., LLC, No.
14-8543, 2019 WL 7049925 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 23, 2019); Flores v. HMS Host
Corp., No. 18-3312, 2019 WL 5454647 (D. Md. Oct. 23, 2019). But see
Shaffer v. Perry's Rests., Ltd., No. 16-1193, 2019 WL 2098116, at *1
(W.D. Tex. Apr. 24, 2019). The Department has now explained through
this notice-and-comment rulemaking process its reasoning for replacing
the 80/20 approach with the updated related duties test.
In sum, the Department adopts the changes to Sec. 531.56(e) as
proposed, with minor exceptions. First, to ensure that it is read
consistently with Sec. 531.59(b), which makes the tip credit available
``only for hours worked by the employee,'' the Department replaces the
phrase ``amount of time'' in the fourth sentence of proposed Sec.
531.56(e)(2) with ``hours.'' This correction for consistency does not
change the meaning of the proposed language. Thus, the fourth sentence
of Sec. 531.56(e)(2) as adopted reads: ``An employer may take a tip
credit for any hours that an employee performs related, non-tipped
duties contemporaneously with his or her tipped duties, or for a
reasonable time immediately before or after performing the tipped
duties.'' Second, as discussed in more detail below, the Department
does not use O*NET's list of duties for an occupation to definitively
limit the non-tipped duties that are related to that occupation.
Rather, it refers to O*NET as the source of a list of non-tipped duties
that are presumed to be related to a tipped occupation.
iii. Comments Regarding the Use of O*NET
The Department received several comments on proposed Sec.
531.56(e)(3), which would use O*NET as a source for defining which non-
tipped duties are related to a tipped occupation. Some commenters
representing employers stated that using O*NET to define related duties
would make the tip credit easier to administer. Littler, for example,
stated that employers can ``simply check O*NET and assign the duties
appearing on that list. Upon doing that, employers can take a tip
credit for the employee's entire shift.'' The Center for Workplace
Compliance also supported the proposed update to the regulations,
stating that it would ``make compliance simpler.''
The Department also received several comments expressing concerns
about using O*NET to define related duties. Some commenters, including
Littler, Fisher Phillips, and NELP, expressed concern about the fact
that O*NET's listings and identified job duties are subject to change
and could ``even disappear in the future.'' Some commenters were
concerned that the list of related duties could expand without limit or
be manipulated, and some commenters recommended incorporating the O*NET
definitions in place as of the date of this final rule. The National
Restaurant Association and another commenter requested that the
Department state that a task's appearance on O*NET is sufficient but
not necessary to demonstrate that it is related to the occupation. Some
commenters advocated for the Department to state that a tipped worker's
related duties may encompass the duties of any tip-producing occupation
within the same industry. Finally, State Attorneys General and some
other commenters disputed whether further clarity regarding related
duties was necessary, pointing to numerous court cases applying the
Department's prior guidance, which did not comprehensively define
related duties.
After considering the comments, the Department finalizes Sec.
531.56(e)(3) largely as proposed but with an addition to account for
concerns raised by commenters. Specifically, the Department adds the
phrase ``presumed to be'' in two locations in Sec. 531.56(e)(3), so
that the section now states that a non-tipped duty is presumptively
related to a tip-producing occupation if it is listed as a task of the
tip-producing occupation in O*NET.
O*NET is the most current and comprehensive source of descriptive
occupational information in the United States. O*NET has conducted
extensive research and collects occupational data from multiple
sources: Incumbent workers, occupational experts, employers, and trade
and professional associations.\14\ This multiple-method approach
ensures high quality data, which facilitates O*NET's ability to
identify new and emerging occupations in high-growth industries, and
new and changing skills requirements in existing occupations. O*NET
also uses a flexible, common language-based system to describe the
world of work, making it accessible and understandable. In addition to
serving job seekers and students, O*NET is used by state workforce
agencies and the Department's Employment and Training Administration.
Therefore, the Department believes that O*NET is the best way to give
employers and employees clear, comprehensible information on related
duties that will remain current, even in a changing economy. As noted
by commenters, employers may simply check O*NET and take the tip credit
for time spent by their employees performing the related duties
appearing on the list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ More detailed information about O*NET's data collection can
be found at https://www.onetcenter.org/ombclearance.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although some commenters expressed concern that O*NET will not be
maintained in perpetuity, the Department has no intention of making
O*NET unavailable at any time in the near future. O*NET has existed for
more than 20 years and replaced a similar product, the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles, which had existed since the 1930s. Should O*NET be
discontinued, the Department would revisit the regulation. The
Department also declines to incorporate O*NET's current list of tasks
into the regulation because doing so would limit its usefulness with
regard to both changing and emerging occupations. In addition, this
would require the Department to expend substantial resources to
identify which of the nearly 1,000 occupations in O*NET are tipped and
which are not, without the benefit of stakeholder input in making these
determinations.
Moreover, some commenters suggested that adopting O*NET by
reference is problematic because automatic updates to the database
would not go through notice and comment. However, in response to those
comments and others concerned with changes to O*NET, and in recognizing
that O*NET is updated using occupational data from various sources and
may not accurately capture all related non-tipped duties, the
Department is not adopting the O*NET listings as binding requirements.
Rather, the Department is adopting O*NET only to assist in determining
when a tipped employee's non-tipped duties are related to his or her
tipped occupation. Specifically, the final rule explains that the
Department will look to the tasks listed within the tip-producing
occupation in O*NET as guidance on
[[Page 86772]]
whether a particular non-tipped duty is related to a tipped occupation.
In other words, a non-tipped duty listed as a task of a tip-producing
occupation in O*NET indicates that this duty can be treated as related
to the tipped occupation. However, if industry-wide practices and
trends demonstrate that a listed duty is not actually related to the
tipped occupation, or that an unlisted duty is actually related to that
occupation, then employers would not be able to rely on O*NET as a
compliance assistance tool in that particular case. In sum, because any
updates to O*NET will not result in additional legal requirements for
affected parties, those changes are not subject to notice and comment.
Adopting fluctuating databases and standards as guidance is a
common regulatory practice. For example, the Department refers to the
Dictionary of Occupational Titles, O*NET's predecessor, when
determining whether a public employee's volunteer activity is in the
``same type of services'' that he is paid to perform. See 29 CFR
553.103; FLSA2008-16 at *3 (Dec. 18, 2008) (clarifying that referring
to O*NET for this determination is also acceptable). Other Federal
agencies also use this approach in a variety of contexts. Social
Security Administration regulations, for instance, refer to the
Department's Dictionary of Occupational Titles, several Census
publications, and the Occupational Outlook Handbook published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics to rule on benefits applications. See 20 CFR
416.966(d). Meanwhile, the Department of Education requires
postsecondary schools to be accredited, but outsources those
accrediting decisions to accrediting bodies, each of which makes its
own accreditation rules. See 34 CFR part 602.
Although some commenters expressed concerns about potential
manipulation of O*NET, the Department is confident that O*NET, upon
which numerous stakeholders and governmental entities depend, is
reliable. O*NET's data collection process ensures this reliability by
incorporating, among other methods, surveying and random sampling, data
cleaning, weighting, and the use of experts and occupational analysts.
Several commenters asked the Department to allow employers to deem
as ``related'' to a tipped occupation additional duties that are
neither included in the O*NET duties list for the occupation nor as
examples in the regulation. The Department does not believe that this
explicit approach is necessary. Under Sec. 531.56(e)(3) as proposed,
O*NET's list of non-tipped duties for an occupation was exhaustive;
non-tipped duties were not related to the occupation unless they
appeared in the O*NET list of duties. But under Sec. 531.56(e)(3) as
adopted, O*NET's lists are no longer exhaustive--O*NET lists duties
that are presumed to be related to the tipped occupation, but that list
is no longer exhaustive.
The Department disagrees with the commenters who dispute the need
for further clarity regarding related duties. The extensive litigation
over the 80/20 approach attests to the difficulty in determining
whether particular non-tipped duties were related to an employee's
tipped occupation. In many of these cases, courts declined to dismiss
at the pleading stage the plaintiffs' claims that they performed
unrelated duties for which they were improperly compensated because
facts developed through discovery could ultimately show that those
duties were related to the plaintiffs' tipped occupations. See, e.g.,
Knox v. Jones Grp., 201 F. Supp. 3d 951, 959 (S.D. Ind. 2016) (citing
precedent in reasoning that ``the division between permissible, related
duties and impermissible, unrelated duties is not categorical''; the
court would ultimately need to consider ``the qualitative and
quantitative nature of the allegedly unrelated duties''); Stokes v.
Wings Inv., LLC, 213 F. Supp. 3d 1097, 1102 (S.D. Ind. 2016) (``After
conducting discovery, Defendant might be able to show that all of the
duties identified by Plaintiff are related to her tipped
occupation[.]''). Using O*NET to identify non-tipped duties that are
presumed to be related to particular tipped occupations will make it
simpler for employers, employees, and courts alike to distinguish
related duties for which employers can take a tip credit from unrelated
duties for which for which they cannot. Section 531.56(e)(3) as adopted
may not furnish as much certainty as that section did as proposed, but
it furnishes much more certainty than the regulatory text prior to this
final rule, which identified few duties as related or unrelated.
Additionally, the Department sought and received comment on the use of
O*NET as a tool for identifying non-tipped duties that would be related
to a tipped occupation, and the majority of commenters agreed that
using the database would be useful and would provide much-needed
clarity.
Finally, the Department declines commenters' requests to expand the
related duties for a particular occupation beyond the O*NET tasks
associated with that occupation to include any tasks associated with
any other tipped occupation in the same industry. One commenter, by way
of example, noted an overlap in a number of tasks shared by bartenders
and servers. That example itself demonstrates why adopting that same-
industry standard would be inappropriate. As reflected in O*NET, the
North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) places
bartenders and servers within the Accommodation and Food Services
industry--an industry that also includes occupations such as hotel
maids and gaming dealers. It is not part of a hotel bartender's tipped
occupation to equip rooms with linens, nor is it part of a hotel maid's
tipped occupation to deal cards or collect wagers.
In light of these considerations, the Department finalizes the
regulation to include the O*NET database as a source of non-tipped
duties that are presumed to be related to a tipped occupation. The
Department will continue to evaluate and refine its approach with
respect to O*NET to address concerns that may arise.
E. Civil Money Penalties
i. Civil Money Penalties for Violations of Section 3(m)(2)(B)
Section 1201(b)(3) of the CAA amended FLSA section 16(e)(2) by
adding new penalty language: ``Any person who violates section
3(m)(2)(B) shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $1,100 for
each such violation, as the Secretary determines appropriate, in
addition to being liable to the employee or employees affected for all
tips unlawfully kept, and an additional equal amount as liquidated
damages, as described in subsection (b).'' The Department's current
enforcement policy states that the CAA amendments give the Department
discretion to impose civil money penalties (CMPs) up to $1,100 \15\
when employers unlawfully keep employee tips (including when they allow
managers or supervisors to keep any portion of employees' tips). See
FAB 2018-3. The Department currently follows its normal procedures for
FLSA CMPs with regard to violations of section 3(m)(2)(B), ``including
by determining whether the violation is repeated or willful.'' See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The CMP amounts in this rule are adjusted for inflation as
required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of
1990 (Pub. L. 101-410), as amended by the Debt Collection
Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134, sec. 31001(s)) and the
Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of
2015 (Pub. L. 114-74, sec. 701).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department proposed to incorporate this current guidance into
the regulations: To use the same
[[Page 86773]]
guidelines and procedures that it follows for assessing CMPs for
violations of the minimum wage (section 6) and overtime (section 7)
requirements of the FLSA as it does for violations of section
3(m)(2)(B). That means the Department proposed to assess CMPs for
violations of section 3(m)(2)(B) only when it determines the violation
is repeated or willful.
Some commenters generally supported the proposal regarding CMPs.
The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) noted that the
Department ``has taken into account the practical realities of labor
compliance for small businesses'' by proposing to exercise its
discretion by assessing CMPs for ``violations of section 3(m)(2)(B)
only if committed repeatedly or willfully.'' Other commenters, such as
the National Employment Lawyers Association, the National Women's Law
Center, and NELP, opposed the proposal, arguing that because ``Congress
used the words `repeatedly or willfully' for minimum wage and overtime
violations [in section 16(e)(2)] but omitted such words with respect to
section 3(m)(2)(B),'' that ``demonstrates Congress' clear intent that
civil penalties for this latter section do not require a repeated or
willful violation.'' Senator Murray and Representative DeLauro stated
that the relevant language ``clearly provides for a civil penalty . . .
against `any person' and for `each' violation of the tip-protection
language'' and argued that the Department's proposal was ``in direct
contravention of this plain language.''
The CAA amendments state that ``[a]ny person who violates section
203(m)(2)(B) of this title shall be subject to a civil penalty not to
exceed $1,100 for each such violation, as the Secretary determines
appropriate . . . .'' 29 U.S.C. 216(e)(2) (emphasis added). The plain
meaning of this language is that the Department has the discretion to
determine when civil penalties are appropriate. While Senator Murray
and Representative DeLauro's comment acknowledged that this language
gives the Secretary discretion, they argued ``that discretion is to be
used to determine the amount of the penalty up to $1,100 depending on
the particular circumstances,'' rather than whether to assess a CMP at
all. The Department does not see any inconsistency with its approach
here. Effectively, the Department is exercising its discretion ``to
determine the amount of the penalty . . . depending on the particular
circumstances''; it has determined to assess a CMP of $0 for violations
that are not repeated or willful. Section 216(e) also authorizes the
Department to assess CMPs ``not to exceed'' a specified amount in the
context of child labor, minimum wage, and overtime violations, and the
Department has long used such discretion to determine the amount of
penalties assessed in those areas. Unlike the CAA, however, those
authorizations do not include the language ``as the Secretary
determines appropriate.'' Therefore, the CAA language granting the
Secretary discretion to determine the appropriateness of CMPs for
violations of section 3(m)(2)(B) must refer to the Secretary's
discretion to determine whether to assess CMPs at all.
The Department in the 2019 NPRM proposed to explain in the
regulations its intent to exercise its discretion by limiting the
assessment of CMPs to repeated and willful violations of section
3(m)(2)(B). Assessing CMPs only when an employer has repeatedly or
willfully violated section 3(m)(2)(B), as opposed to doing so for a
first-time violation, is consistent with how the Department enforces
other FLSA wage violations. The Department has been assessing CMPs for
repeated or willful violations of the minimum wage and overtime
requirements of the FLSA using the guidelines in part 578 and
procedures in part 580 for nearly three decades. This consistency of
approach creates familiarity with the Department's requirements in both
the public and in the Department's staff, in turn engendering
consistency of compliance among employers and consistency in
enforcement by the Department's staff, and ultimately improves public
trust in the law and the Department's enforcement of it. For these
reasons, the Department finalizes the revisions to the regulations at
29 CFR 578.1, 578.4, 579.1, 580.2, 580.3, 580.12, and 580.18 as
proposed.
In addition to clarifying the circumstances under which it will
seek CMPs, the Department proposed to revise 29 CFR 578.3 and 579.2 to
clarify how it determines whether a violation is willful for purposes
of assessing CMPs. See 84 FR 53964-65. As explained in the NPRM, the
Department's definition of a ``willful'' violation in Sec. Sec. 578.3
and 579.2 is based on McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128,
133 (1988), which held that a violation is willful if the employer
``knew or showed reckless disregard'' for whether its conduct was
prohibited by the FLSA. Sections 578.3(c)(1) and 579.2 incorporate this
holding and state that ``[a]ll of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the violation shall be taken into account in determining
whether a violation was willful.'' The Department proposed no changes
to this language.
Previous Sec. Sec. 578.3(c)(2) and (3) and 579.2 stated that ``an
employer's conduct shall be deemed knowing'' if the employer received
advice from WHD that its conduct is unlawful. These sections further
stated that ``an employer's conduct shall be deemed to be in reckless
disregard'' of the FLSA's requirements ``if the employer should have
inquired further'' into whether its conduct complied with the FLSA
``and failed to make adequate further inquiry.'' In the NPRM, the
Department discussed concerns with this language that two appellate
courts had identified. See 84 FR 53964-65 (discussing Rhea Lana, Inc.
v. Dep't of Labor, 824 F.3d 1023, 1030-32 (D.C. Cir. 2016), and
Baystate Alt. Staffing, Inc. v. Herman, 163 F.3d 668, 680-81 (1st Cir.
1998)). Those courts noted the inconsistency between the regulation's
language, on the one hand, that conduct ``shall be deemed knowing'' if
the employer was previously advised by WHD that the conduct was
unlawful, and its language, on the other hand, derived from Richland
Shoe that WHD shall take into account ``[a]ll of the facts and
circumstances surrounding the violation'' when determining willfulness.
See id. The Department explained in the NPRM that it does evaluate all
of the facts and circumstances surrounding a violation when litigating
willfulness and that while an employer's receipt of advice from WHD
that its conduct was unlawful can be sufficient to prove willfulness,
notwithstanding the regulatory language that appears to be to the
contrary, it would not necessarily be so. See 84 FR 53965. In light of
the appellate courts' opinions and the Department's acknowledgement of
how it litigates willfulness, the NPRM proposed to revise Sec. Sec.
578.3(c)(2)-(3) and 579.2 to clarify that, in considering all of the
facts and circumstances, an employer's receipt of advice from WHD that
its conduct is unlawful and its failure to inquire further regarding
the legality of its conduct are each ``a relevant fact and
circumstance'' in determining willfulness. See 84 FR 53978.
Some commenters supported the proposed revision. The Center for
Workplace Compliance (CWC) explained that, under the proposal, ``advice
from [WHD] about the lawfulness of conduct would be a relevant factor
in determining willfulness, but would not automatically trigger the
standard.'' CWC stated that the proposed revision ``more closely aligns
with federal court precedent'' and is ``a more practical
[[Page 86774]]
interpretation that recognizes that employers should not be
automatically subject to civil money penalties where legitimate
questions exist concerning coverage of the FLSA.'' Fisher Phillips
described the proposed revision as ``vague'' but asserted that ``there
is [often] a legitimate dispute with the Department's position''--
suggesting that an employer's receipt of advice from WHD that its
conduct was unlawful should not always mean that the violation was
willful.
Other commenters, such as Texas RioGrande Legal Aid and NELA,
opposed the proposed revision. They described Sec. 578.3(c) as stating
``longstanding, bright line rules'' that ``promote consistency in
application and certainty for employers.'' They asserted that, ``in
redefining willfulness, the Department is using the need to implement
new worker protections in the FLSA as a pretext to weaken worker
protections--in this case, far beyond the context of tipped
occupations.'' They stated that the Department ``is misguided at best .
. . to apply a vaguer, weaker standard to the new statutory provision
at hand, and it is beyond the pale to apply the same proposal to
minimum wage, overtime, and child labor standards that are not at issue
in this rulemaking.'' They criticized the proposed revision as
treating, in Texas RioGrande Legal Aid's words, ``an employer's
decision to ignore advice from the Department as a mere factor to be
considered rather than'' evidence that is ``sufficient'' to show that
the violation was willful. Finally, NELA stated that the Department did
not furnish adequate notice of its intent to change ``nontip'' portions
of the regulations and that the NPRM's statement that Sec. 578.3(c)
contradicts Supreme Court precedent was considered and rejected when it
was promulgated in 1992.
Having considered the comments, the Department adopts the proposed
revisions with some modifications. The final rule revises Sec.
578.3(c)(2) and corresponding language in Sec. 579.2 to state that, in
considering all of the facts and circumstances, an employer's receipt
of advice from WHD that its conduct was unlawful can be sufficient to
show that the violation is willful but is not automatically
dispositive. This revision addresses concerns raised by commenters that
one fact should not automatically result in a violation being willful
but that the fact identified in Sec. 578.3(c)(2) can be ``sufficient''
for a violation to be willful. In addition, the final rule deletes
Sec. 578.3(c)(3) and corresponding language in Sec. 579.2. Upon
further consideration, Sec. 578.3(c)(3) does not just identify a fact
and address how that fact impacts a willfulness finding (like Sec.
578.3(c)(2) does). Instead, it addresses a scenario--should have
inquired further but did not do so adequately--that is tantamount to
reckless disregard. See Davila v. Menendez, 717 F.3d 1179, 1185 (11th
Cir. 2013). Accordingly, revising Sec. 578.3(c)(3) in the same manner
as Sec. 578.3(c)(2) did not seem helpful, and retaining Sec.
578.3(c)(3) without modifying it would not resolve the concerns raised
by the appellate decisions discussed above.
These modified revisions, including deleting Sec. 578.3(c)(3) and
corresponding language in Sec. 579.2, resolve the tensions identified
within the Department's regulations and with the Supreme Court's
decision and comport more precisely with how the Department litigates
willfulness than did the original proposed revisions. An employer's
receipt of advice from WHD that its conduct is unlawful is a relevant,
and may be a determining, factor regarding that employer's
willfulness--but the law also requires examining all facts and
circumstances surrounding the violation. Among other situations, proof
that an employer should have inquired further into whether its conduct
was in compliance with the Act and failed to make adequate further
inquiry is only one indicium of reckless disregard. Finally, the
Department gave adequate notice of its intent to revise Sec. Sec.
578.3(c)(2)-(3) and 579.2, and the Rhea Lana and Baystate decisions
give a sufficient basis for reconsidering its regulations on
willfulness.
F. Additional Proposed Regulatory Revisions
In the NPRM, the Department proposed to revise Sec. 531.50 to
reflect the language that the CAA added to the FLSA. The Department
also proposed to update Sec. Sec. 531.50, 531.51, 531.52, 531.55,
531.56, 531.59, and 531.60 to reflect the new statutory citation to the
FLSA's existing tip credit language, previously cited as section 3(m),
as section 3(m)(2)(A). Additionally, the Department proposed to clarify
references in Sec. Sec. 531.56(d), 531.59(a) and (b), and 531.60 to
the amount an employer can take as a tip credit under current section
3(m)(2)(A). The Department's regulations currently state that an
employer can take a tip credit for each employee equal to the
difference between the minimum wage required by section 6(a)(1) of the
FLSA (currently $7.25 an hour) and $2.13 an hour. To ensure that the
Department's regulations clearly state employers' obligations under the
FLSA, the Department proposed to revise Sec. Sec. 531.56(d), 531.59(a)
and (b), and 531.60 to state, consistent with the text of the statute,
that the tip credit permitted by section 3(m)(2)(A) is equal to the
difference between the Federal minimum wage and the cash wage paid by
the employer. That cash wage must be at least $2.13 per hour, but the
statute does not preclude an employer from paying more.
The Department received little comment on these proposed regulatory
revisions, which merely update the regulations to reflect the new
statutory language and citations added by the CAA amendments and
clarify other references consistent with the statutory text.
Accordingly, the Department adopts as proposed the updates to
Sec. Sec. 531.50, 531.51, 531.52, 531.55, 531.56, 531.59, and 531.60
to reflect the new statutory citation to the FLSA's existing tip credit
language, previously cited as section 3(m), as section 3(m)(2)(A) and
to revise Sec. 531.50 to reflect the language that the CAA added to
the FLSA. Additionally, the Department adopts as proposed the
clarifying references in Sec. Sec. 531.56(d), 531.59(a) and (b), and
531.60 to the amount an employer can take as a tip credit under section
3(m)(2)(A).
In the NPRM, the Department proposed to amend the tip language of
its Executive Order 13658 regulations. Executive Order 13658 raised the
hourly minimum wage paid by contractors to workers performing work on
or in connection with covered Federal contracts. See E.O. 13658, 79 FR
9851 (Feb. 12, 2014). The Executive order also established a tip credit
for workers covered by the Order who are tipped employees pursuant to
section 3(t) of the FLSA. Section 4(c) of the Executive Order
encourages the Department, when promulgating regulations under that
Order, to incorporate existing ``definitions, procedures, remedies, and
enforcement processes'' from a number of laws that the agency enforces,
including the FLSA, and the Department's current Executive Order 13658
regulations are modeled after the Department's current FLSA tip
regulations. The Department proposed to amend Sec. 10.28, consistent
with its proposed rescissions to portions of the Department's FLSA
regulations, to remove restrictions on an employer's use of
nontraditional tip pools and to otherwise align those regulations with
the authority in the Executive Order. The Department also proposed to
amend Sec. 10.28, consistent with its proposed revisions to Sec.
531.56(e), to reflect its current guidance on when an employee
[[Page 86775]]
performing non-tipped work constitutes a tipped employee for the
purposes of 3(t). The Department received few comments on the proposal
to amend Sec. 10.28. The Center for Workplace Compliance indicated
that they ``support DOL's corresponding revisions to the regulations
implementing the federal contractor minimum wage.'' The Department
continues to believe that since many Federal contractors also are
subject to the FLSA regulations proposed, it is important to align the
corresponding regulations in part 10. Accordingly, in this final rule
the Department adopts Sec. 10.28 as proposed, with these exceptions:
As with the fourth sentence in Sec. 531.56(e)(2), the Department
replaces the phrase ``amount of time'' in the fourth sentence of Sec.
10.28(b)(2)(ii) with ``hours,'' so that sentence as adopted reads: ``An
employer may take a tip credit for any hours that an employee performs
related, non-tipped duties contemporaneously with his or her tipped
duties, or for a reasonable time immediately before or after performing
the tipped duties.'' Additionally, as with the changes to Sec.
531.56(e)(3), the Department adds the phrase ``presumed to be'' in two
locations in Sec. 10.28(b)(2)(iii).
The Department attempted to use gender-neutral phrasing in its
proposed regulations. Texas RioGrande Legal Aid appreciated the
Department's efforts but noted some omissions. In response, the
Department has made revisions to Sec. Sec. 531.54(a) and 531.56(a),
(c), and (e) to make these sections gender-neutral.
Finally, in this final rule the Department corrects a typographical
error in the NPRM, identified by the NFIB. In the authority section of
the regulatory text, the Department corrects the authority to cite
Title 5, not Title 4. The Department also corrects an additional
typographical error in Sec. 10.28(b)(2)(iii) referencing examples
described in paragraph (b)(2)(ii).
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
and its attendant regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require the Department
to consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection
burdens imposed on the public. This final rule will revise the existing
information collection burden estimates previously approved under OMB
control number 1235-0018 (Records to be Kept by Employers--Fair Labor
Standards Act) because employers may choose to pay the full Federal
minimum wage and not take a tip credit, and collect tips to operate an
employer-required, mandatory tip pooling arrangement, thereby
triggering the new recordkeeping requirement in Sec. 516.28(b).
In accordance with the PRA, the Department solicited comments on
the FLSA information collections in the NPRM published October 8, 2019,
see 84 FR 53956, as the NPRM was expected to impact these collections.
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). The Department also submitted a contemporaneous
request for OMB review of the proposed revisions to the FLSA
information collections, in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). The
Department opened OMB control number 1235-0NEW for this action and OMB
assigned control number 1235-0030 for this action.\16\ As the PRA
requires, the Department submitted the information collection revisions
to OMB for review to reflect changes that would result from this final
rule. The Department reports a slight burden increase for employers
keeping records concerning employees who receive tips. OMB asked the
Department to resubmit the information collection request upon
promulgation of the final rule and after considering public comments on
the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The NPRM for this final rule cited 1235-0NEW as the OMB
control number for revising information collection burdens
previously approved under control number 1235-0018. A different
control number was needed for this action because a revision of
1235-0018 was already under review for another of the Department's
rulemakings. The creation of a new control number allowed OMB to
process this action. On December 10, 2019, OMB issued a notice of
action assigning new control number 1235-0030. Upon conclusion of
this action by OMB, the Department will submit a nonsubstantive
change request to combine the control numbers 1235-0018 with 1235-
0030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Circumstances Necessitating Collection: FLSA section 11(c) requires
covered employers to make, keep, and preserve records of employees and
their wages, hours, and other conditions of employment, as prescribed
by regulation. The Department's regulations at 29 CFR part 516
establish the basic FLSA recordkeeping requirements. Section 516.28(a)
currently requires employers to keep certain records concerning tipped
employees for whom the employer takes a tip credit under the FLSA.
Among other things, Sec. 516.28(a) requires that the employer identify
each employee for whom the employer takes a tip credit, identify the
hourly tip credit for each such employee, and maintain records
regarding the weekly or monthly amount of tips received (which may
consist of IRS Form 4070) as reported by the employee to the employer.
The new recordkeeping regulations found at Sec. 516.28(b)(1) and (2)
require an employer that does not take a tip credit, but that collects
employees' tips to operate a mandatory tip pooling arrangement, to
indicate on its pay records each employee who receives tips and to
maintain records of the weekly or monthly amount of tips that each such
employee receives (this may consist of reports that the employees make
to the employer on IRS Form 4070). The increase in the number of
respondents and, accordingly, the burden hours associated with records
to be kept under Sec. 516.28(b)(1)-(2), is attributable to an
expanding economy increasing the number of establishments employing
individuals who receive tips since the last PRA revision of this
recordkeeping requirement.
Public Comments: The Department sought public comments regarding
the burdens imposed by information collections contained in the NPRM.
The Department received few comments relevant to the PRA. The
Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry expressed support for the
Sec. 516.28 requirement ``that employers who take a tip credit must
record which employees are tipped employees.''
An agency may not conduct an information collection unless it has a
currently valid OMB approval, and the Department submitted the
identified information-collection contained in the NPRM to OMB for
review under the PRA for control number 1235-0030. See 44 U.S.C.
3507(d); 5 CFR 1320.11. The Department has resubmitted the revised FLSA
information collections to OMB for approval, and intends to publish a
notice announcing OMB's decision regarding this information collection
request. A copy of the information collection request can be obtained
at http://www.reginfo.gov or by contacting the Wage and Hour Division
as shown in the For Further Information Contact section of this
preamble.
Total annual burden estimates, which reflect both the existing and
new responses for the recordkeeping information collection, are
summarized as follows:
Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Agency: Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor.
Title: Records to be Kept by Employers--Fair Labor Standards Act.
OMB Control Number: 1235-0030.
Affected Public: Private Sector: Businesses or other for-profits,
farms, and not-for-profit institutions; State, local and tribal
governments; and individuals or households.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,763,890 (29,296 from this
rulemaking).
[[Page 86776]]
Estimated Number of Responses: 43,709,493 (703,104 from this
rulemaking).
Estimated Burden Hours: 983,359 hours (1,953 from this rulemaking).
Estimated Time per Response: Various (unaffected by this
rulemaking).
Frequency: Various (unaffected by this rulemaking).
Other Burden Cost: $0.
V. Analysis Conducted in Accordance With Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563, Improved
Regulation and Regulatory Review
A. Introduction
Under Executive Order 12866, OMB's Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs determines whether a regulatory action is
significant and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the
Executive Order and OMB review.\17\ Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action that is
likely to result in a rule that: (1) Has an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affects in a material way
a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or state, local or tribal
governments or communities (also referred to as economically
significant); (2) creates serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially
alters the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan
programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)
raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
order. Because the annual effect of this rule would be greater than
$100 million, this rule is economically significant under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 58 FR 51735 (Sept. 30, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to propose or adopt a
regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify
its costs; that it is tailored to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with achieving the regulatory objectives; and that, in
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, the agency has
selected the approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order
13563 recognizes that some benefits are difficult to quantify and
states that, when appropriate and permitted by law, agencies may
consider and discuss qualitatively values that are difficult or
impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and
distributive impacts.
B. Economic Analysis
i. Introduction
In March 2018, Congress amended section 3(m) and sections 16(b),
(c), and (e) of the FLSA to prohibit employers from keeping their
employees' tips, to permit recovery of tips that an employer unlawfully
keeps, and to suspend the operations of the portions of the 2011 final
rule that restricted tip pooling when employers do not take a tip
credit. This analysis examines the economic impact associated with the
Department's implementation of those amendments. Specifically, it
examines the possible transfers resulting from employers who implement
a new nontraditional tip pool that includes ``back-of-the-house''
employees (i.e., janitors, chefs, dishwashers, and food-preparation
workers) who formerly either did not claim a tip credit and previously
did not have a mandatory tip pool, or who only had a traditional tip
pool limited to ``front-of-the-house'' employees. The Department is
also amending its ``dual jobs'' regulation to replace the 80/20
approach with the updated related duties test. The Department
qualitatively discusses potential economic impacts of this update but
does not quantify them due to lack of data and the wide range of
possible responses by market actors that cannot be predicted with
specificity. Commentators provided neither needed data nor a reliable
quantitative estimate of economic impacts that the Department could
use. The Department quantified rule familiarization costs and
qualitatively discusses additional costs, cost savings, and benefits.
To perform the quantitative analysis, the Department compared the
impact relative to a pre-statutory baseline (i.e., before Congress
amended the FLSA in March 2018). If the Department were to look at
economic impacts relative to a post-statutory baseline, there would
likely be no impact of the tip pooling aspect of the final rule, aside
from rule familiarization costs, as the transfers arise from the
changes put forth in the statute.
The economic analysis covers employees in two industries and in two
occupations within those industries. The two industries are classified
under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) as
722410 (Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages)) and 722511 (Full-service
Restaurants); referred to in this analysis as ``restaurants and
drinking places.'' The two occupations are classified under Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes
SOC 35-3031 (Waiters and Waitresses) and SOC 35-3011 (Bartenders).\18\
The Department understands that there are other occupations beyond
servers and bartenders with tipped workers, such as SOC 35-9011 (Dining
room and Cafeteria Attendants and Bartender Helpers), SOC 35-9031
(Hosts and Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, and Coffee Shop), and others,
as well as other industries that employ workers who receive tips, such
as NAICS 722515 (snack and nonalcoholic beverage bars), NAICS 722513
(limited service restaurants), NAICS 721110 (hotels and motels), and
NAICS 713210 (casinos). Nonetheless, the Department concentrates its
analysis on the above two occupations because they constitute a large
percentage of total tipped workers and more than half (56.5 percent) of
the workers in these occupations receive tips (see Table 1 for shares
of workers in these occupations who report receiving tips).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ In the Current Population Survey, these occupations
correspond to Bartenders (Census Code 4040) and Waiters and
Waitresses (Census Code 4110). The industries correspond to
Restaurants and Other Food Services (Census Code 8680) and Drinking
Places, Alcoholic Beverages (Census Code 8690).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis presents its estimates over a 10-year time horizon.
When summarizing the costs and transfers of the rule, the Department
presents the first year's impact, as well as the 10-year annualized
costs and transfers with 3 percent and 7 percent discounting.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Discount rates are directed by OMB. See Circular A-4, OMB
(Sept. 17, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the Department's analysis relies on data collected before
2020, it reflects the state of the economy prior to the COVID-19
pandemic. The Department acknowledges that data on tipped workers will
possibly look different following the economic effects of the pandemic,
and discusses potential effects here.
The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly affected the restaurant industry
and tipped workers. The unemployment rate for the Food Services and
Drinking Places industry jumped from 5.7 percent in February 2020 to
35.4 percent in April 2020. Although the rate has fallen by more than
half of its peak, 16.4 percent of these workers were still unemployed
as of September 2020.\20\ Even as restaurants begin to reopen across
the nation, and tipped workers return to their jobs, uncertainty exists
[[Page 86777]]
regarding the long-term impacts. Even in areas with limited pandemic-
related restrictions, business may be affected as some customers may
remain reluctant to eat at restaurants due to the pandemic. As a
result, employers may not be hiring or staffing at pre-pandemic levels,
at least in the near term. In a survey of full service restaurant
operators conducted by the National Restaurant Association from August
26 through September 1, 2020, staffing plans were mixed--26 percent of
operators said they plan to add employees and 25 percent said they plan
to lay off or furlough employees.\21\ During the short term, as the
economic effects of the pandemic linger, the labor market for tipped
workers will be less predictable, and aggregate tips may be reduced,
though the amount of tips per employee may or may not be impacted.
Because unemployment in tipped industries is still higher than it was
at the beginning of the year, the transfer estimate for the first year
of the RIA's time horizon could be reduced. The Department lacks data
to determine how much the transfer estimate will be reduced, and
believes that this effect will be temporary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ BLS Current Population Survey, https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU04034262/?amp%253bdata_tool=XGtable&output_view=data&include_graphs=true.
\21\ National Restaurant Association, Restaurant Employment
Recovery is in Danger of Stalling, Sept. 4, 2020, https://restaurant.org/articles/news/restaurant-employment-recovery-is-in-danger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department acknowledges these changes in the industry but
believes that the justifications for the Rule remain as strong as--if
not more so than--before the pandemic. More flexibility in compensation
and labor allocation will help businesses retain workers and maintain
capacity. Further, the increased cooperation and efficiency that the
final rule promotes will help businesses maintain quality of service--
and therefore support tipped-employee compensation and provide
increased certainty to tipped workers--at a time when the industry as a
whole is struggling.
ii. Estimated Transfers
Under this regulation, transfers could arise when employers that
already pay the full Federal minimum wage and previously did not have a
mandatory tip pool or had only a traditional tip pool institute
nontraditional tip pools in which tipped employees, such as servers and
bartenders, are required to share tips with employees who do not
customarily and regularly receive tips, such as cooks and dishwashers.
The Department believes that including back-of-the-house workers in tip
pools could help promote cooperation and collaboration among employees.
This increased cooperation and flexibility could lead to Pareto
improvement: Efficiencies that allow employers to engage in tip-pooling
without decreasing wages for anyone while increasing wages for some.
However, even in the event that tip-pooling requires a transfer from
the front-of-the-house, directly observable transfers will mainly occur
among employees because the statute prohibits employers from keeping
employee tips.
It is possible that there will be subsequent transfers after the
initial tip pooling and redistribution takes place. Because back-of-
the-house workers could now be receiving tips, employers may offset
this increase in total compensation by reducing the direct wage that
they pay back-of-the-house workers (as long as employers do not reduce
the employees' direct wages below the applicable minimum wage), and
such an outcome is what is modeled to produce the quantitative estimate
of transfers. However, there are reasons to believe this may not be
common in practice. Consider a pastry chef currently making $20 per
hour. The Department assumes that, in practice, this established wage
would restrict an employer's ability to reduce the total compensation
wage (i.e., wages plus pooled tips) below that rate. The chef, who last
year was paid $20 per hour in Georgia, could in theory, with this rule,
have her direct wage reduced to the Federal minimum wage of $7.25, with
tip pooling adding to that wage and bringing the total take-home to
near or above $20. However, even if the pooled tips amounted to $15 per
hour, the minimum wage would prevent the employer from reducing her
direct wage to $5. If pooled tips account for only $3 per hour on
average, it is unlikely the employer would be able to reduce her hourly
wage rate below $17, more than twice as much as is allowed by law,
because of the market effects impacting wages.
A number of commenters raised the prospect that employers could use
tip pooling to ultimately transfer tips to themselves by reducing the
base wages of back-of-the-house workers since those workers would now
be earning tips to offset the wage reduction. However, employers in
states that permit tip credits--which is a majority of states--may
already transfer to themselves up to the full amount of the tip credit
(up to $5.12 per hour) directly from front-of-the-house workers without
first initiating a system of tip pooling for back-of-the-house workers
by taking the credit and paying those front-of-the-house workers the
lower direct cash wage (at least $2.13 per hour).
The analysis assumes that employers will institute nontraditional
tip pools with employees who do not customarily and regularly receive
tips only in situations that are beneficial to them. Accordingly, it
assumes that employers will include back-of-the-house employees in
their tip pools only if they believe that they can do so without losing
their front-of-the-house staff and without reducing the overall quality
of the customer experience. To attract and retain the tipped workers
that they need, employers must pay these workers as much as their
``outside option,'' which is the hourly earnings that they could
receive from another employer in a non-tipped job with a similar skill
level requirement to their current position. For each tipped worker,
the Department assumes a transfer could occur only if their total
earnings, including tips, is greater than the predicted outside-option
wage from a non-tipped job. While the Department identified serious
methodological faults with a commenter's outside option analyses, which
are discussed later in this document, the approach comports in
principle to expected market behavior, and therefore the Department
built an outside option calculation into this analysis to frame the
potential upper bound of total transfers.
The transfer calculation herein excludes workers who are paid a
direct cash wage below the full FLSA minimum wage of $7.25, because
under the amended statute and the Department's rule, employers who take
a tip credit are still subject to section 3(m)(2)(A)'s restrictions on
tip pools. Some employers may begin paying their tipped workers a
direct cash wage of at least the full FLSA minimum wage to institute a
tip pool with back-of-the-house workers. The potential transfer due to
this scenario is not quantified due to uncertainty regarding how many
employers would choose to no longer use the tip credit. Choosing to no
longer take a tip credit would require a change to employers' payroll
systems and methods of compensation to which employers and employees
are accustomed, and it would increase the employers' out of pocket
payroll expenses, both of which could discourage employers from making
this change.
The transfer calculation also excludes workers who are paid a
direct cash wage by their employers, exclusive of any tips received,
that exceeds the applicable minimum wage (either the Federal or
applicable state minimum wage). The Department assumes that because
these employers are already paying more than required under applicable
law for these
[[Page 86778]]
workers, any reduction in compensation would result in these workers
leaving that employment. These employees would therefore not have their
tips redistributed through a nontraditional tip pool.
The Department does not attempt to definitively interpret
individual states' laws. However, some servers and bartenders work in
states that either prohibit mandatory tip pooling or impose stricter
limits on who can participate in a mandatory tip pool than are in this
rule,\22\ or in states in the Tenth Circuit where, as a result of
Marlow, 861 F.3d at 1159, employers that do not take a tip credit were
already permitted to institute nontraditional tip pools at the time
Congress amended the FLSA. The transfer estimate excludes tipped
employees in these states whom the changes in this rule may not
affect.\23\ The Department first determined total transfers for all
servers and bartenders using the method described above. The Department
then excluded workers whom the changes would not affect due to their
respective state laws. Finally, the Department further reduced the
total transfer amount to account for the uncertain number of employers
who are expected to decline to change their tip pooling practices
because it will require changes to practices to which employers and
employees are accustomed, including payroll and recordkeeping changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See, e.g., Minn. Stat. sec. 177.24, subd. 3 (``No employer
may require an employee to contribute or share a gratuity received
by the employee with the employer or other employees or to
contribute any or all of the gratuity to a fund or pool operated for
the benefit of the employer or employees.''); Mass. Gen. Laws ch.
149, sec. 152A(c) (``No employer or person shall cause, require or
permit any wait staff employee, service employee, or service
bartender to participate in a tip pool through which such employee
remits any wage, tip or service charge, or any portion thereof, for
distribution to any person who is not a wait staff employee, service
employee, or service bartender.'')
\23\ Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Kansas,
Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To compute potential tip transfers, the Department used individual-
level microdata from the 2017 Current Population Survey (CPS), a
monthly survey of about 60,000 households that is jointly sponsored by
the U.S. Census Bureau and BLS. Households are surveyed for four
months, excluded from the survey for eight months, surveyed for an
additional four months, and then permanently dropped from the sample.
During the last month of each rotation in the sample (month 4 and month
16), employed respondents complete a supplementary questionnaire in
addition to the regular survey. These households and questions form the
CPS Merged Outgoing Rotation Group (CPS-MORG) and give more detailed
information about those surveyed.\24\ Because the CAA went into effect
in March 2018, the Department used CPS data from 2017, the most recent
full year of data that predates the CAA, to calculate the transfer. In
this analysis, 2017 wage data are inflated to 2019 dollars using the
GDP deflator. For purposes of rule familiarization costs, the
Department used the most recent year of data (2019) to reflect
employers reading the rule after it is published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Current Population Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/surveys/cps.html (last visited Aug. 13, 2019); CPS
Merged Outgoing Rotation Groups, NBER, http://www.nber.org//.html
(last visited Aug. 13, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CPS asks respondents whether they usually receive overtime pay,
tips, and commissions (OTTC), which allows the Department to estimate
the number of bartenders and wait staff in restaurants and drinking
places who receive tips.\25\ CPS data are not available separately for
overtime pay, tips, and commissions, but the Department assumes very
few bartenders and wait staff at restaurants and drinking places
receive commissions, and the number who receive overtime pay but not
tips is also assumed to be minimal.\26\ Therefore, when bartenders and
wait staff responded affirmatively to this question, the Department
assumed that they receive tips. Based on CPS data, the Department
identified 2,546 observations (unique data points), which based on the
survey's methodology represent 2.2 million individuals, of respondents
claiming to fall in the two categories of Waiters and Bartenders. The
number of observations decreases as the analysis refines the universe
of applicable employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ This question is asked only of hourly employees and
nonhourly workers are consequently excluded from the transfer
estimate. The Department did not quantify transfers from nonhourly
workers because without knowing the prevalence of tipped income
among nonhourly workers, the Department cannot accurately estimate
potential transfers from these workers. However, the Department
believes the transfer from nonhourly workers will be small because
only 13 percent of wait staff and bartenders in restaurants and
drinking places are nonhourly workers, whom the Department believes
may have a lower probability of receiving tips.
\26\ According to BLS Current Population Survey data, in 2017,
workers in service occupations worked an average of 35 hours per
week. See https://www.bls.gov/cps/aa2017/cpsaat23.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All data tables in this analysis include estimates for the year
2017 as the baseline. To identify the relevant population, the
Department removed from the analysis workers who do not receive tips.
Table 1 presents the estimates of the share of bartenders and wait
staff in restaurants and drinking places who reported that they usually
earned OTTC in 2017. Approximately 64 percent of bartenders and 55
percent of wait staff reported usually earning OTTC in 2017. These
numbers include workers in all states, including states where the
changes in this rule are assumed not to affect. These numbers also
include workers who are paid a direct cash wage below the full FLSA
minimum wage of $7.25 (that is, employees whose employers are using a
tip credit). Both these populations are excluded from the transfer
calculation. Only 56.5 percent of workers in these occupations report
earning tips, which may be low and could result in an underestimation
of transfers. The Department did not adjust for this possibility
because it lacked the data to do so and also estimates there is
sufficient downward pressure on the total transfer estimate due to
other factors that were not adjusted for. Discussions of these can be
found in section V.B.ii (Estimated Transfers and Outside-Option Wage
Calculation).
Table 1--Share of Bartenders and Waiters/Waitresses in Restaurants and Drinking Places Who Earned Overtime Pay,
Tips, or Commissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Workers Report earning OTTC
responding to -------------------------------
Occupation Total workers question on
(millions) OTTC Workers Percent
(millions) (millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 2.21 1.92 1.08 56.5
Bartenders.................................... 0.34 0.27 0.17 63.5
[[Page 86779]]
Waiters/Waitresses............................ 1.88 1.65 0.91 55.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CEPR, 2017 CPS-MORG.
Occupations: Bartenders (Census Code 4040) and Waiters and Waitresses (Census Code 4110).
Industries: Restaurants and other food services (Census Code 8680) and Drinking places, alcoholic beverages
(Census Code 8690).
Of the 1.08 million bartenders and wait staff who receive OTTC,
only 688,000 reported the amount received in OTTC. Therefore, the
Department imputed OTTC for those workers who did not report the amount
received in OTTC. As shown in Table 2, 54 percent of bartenders'
earnings (an average of $281 per week) and 49 percent of waiters' and
waitresses' earnings (an average of $238 per week) were from overtime
pay, tips, and commissions in 2017. For workers who reported receiving
tips but did not report the amount, the ratio of OTTC to total earnings
for the sample who reported their OTTC amounts (54 or 49 percent) was
applied to their weekly total income to estimate weekly tips. Nonhourly
workers, who are not asked the question on receipt of OTTC, are assumed
to not be tipped employees.
Table 2--Portion of Income From Overtime Pay, Tips, and Commissions for Bartenders and Waiters/Waitresses in
Restaurants and Drinking Places
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who report the amount earned in OTTC
------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Occupation Average weekly Average weekly earnings
Workers earnings OTTC attributable
to OTTC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................ 688,171 $486.95 $244.48 50
Bartenders................................... 105,787 521.51 280.61 54
Waiters/Waitresses........................... 582,384 480.67 237.91 49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CEPR, 2017 CPS-MORG, inflated to $2019 using the GDP deflator.
Occupations: Bartenders (Census Code 4040) and Waiters and Waitresses (Census Code 4110).
Industries: Restaurants and other food services (Census Code 8680) and Drinking places, alcoholic beverages
(Census Code 8690).
1. Outside-Option Wage Calculation
As discussed above, to determine potential transfers of tips, the
Department assumes that employers will redistribute tips from tipped
employees to employees who are not customarily and regularly tipped in
a nontraditional tip pool only if the tipped employee's total earnings,
including the tips the employee retains, are greater than the
``outside-option wage'' that the tipped employee could earn in a non-
tipped job. To model a worker's outside-option wage, the Department
used quantile regression analysis to attempt to predict the wage that
these workers would earn in a non-tipped job. Hourly wage was regressed
on age, age squared, age cubed, education, gender, race, ethnicity,
citizenship, marital status, veteran status, metro area status, and
state for a sample of non-tipped workers.\27\ The Department restricted
the regression sample to workers earning at least the Federal minimum
wage of $7.25 per hour (inclusive of OTTC), and those who are employed.
This analysis excludes states where the law prohibits non-tipped back-
of-the-house employees from being included in the tip pool and states
governed by the Marlow decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ For workers who had missing values for one or more of these
explanatory variables we imputed the missing value as the average
value for tipped/non-tipped workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In calculating the outside-option wage for tipped workers, the
Department developed a model that defined the comparator sample for
tipped workers in two different ways: (1) All non-tipped workers (i.e.,
workers who are either not waiters, waitresses, or bartenders, or do
not work in restaurants or drinking places), and (2) Non-tipped workers
in a set of occupations that are likely to represent outside options.
The Department selected the list of relevant occupations by exploring
the similarity between the knowledge, activities, skills, and abilities
required by the occupation to that of servers and bartenders. The
Department searched the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) system
for occupations that share important similarities with waiters and
waitresses and bartenders--the occupations had to require ``customer
and personal service'' knowledge and ``service orientation''
skills.\28\ The list was further reduced by eliminating occupations
that are not comparable to the waitress and bartender occupations in
terms of education and training, as waiter and waitress and bartender
occupations do not require formal education or
[[Page 86780]]
training.\29\ See Appendix Table 1 for a list of these occupations.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ For a full list of all occupations on O*NET, see https://www.onetcenter.org/taxonomy/2010/updated.html.
\29\ Approximately 14 percent of waiters and waitresses and 16
percent of bartenders have college degrees, even though a degree is
not generally required to obtain such positions. According to
research, the degree itself may carry an earnings premium for these
workers. Therefore, excluding outside option occupations based on
education attainment inflates the transfer estimates produced from
this analysis because it compares these workers to artificially
suppressed wage alternatives (e.g., only those positions for which
at least this 14 percent of servers would be over-qualified).
However, since in most cases servers and bartenders are not required
to have degrees, and it is unclear the degree to which including
additional occupations in the outside option pool may skew the
results, the Department opted to exclude these comparator
occupations and simply highlight this fact here. BLS data on the
share of workers with bachelor's degrees working in jobs that only
require a high school diploma are presented in a study by Vedder,
R., Denhart, C., and Robe, J. (2013), available here: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED539373.
\30\ The Appendix and data tables are included in the rulemaking
docket at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The transfer estimates presented in this analysis use this sample
of limited occupations to predict each tipped worker's outside-option
wage, that is, the wage that the tipped worker could earn in a non-
tipped job. The Department also ran the regression to predict the
outside-option wage using all non-tipped workers as the outside-option
sample, and found that transfers are approximately 30 percent lower in
that specification. This implies that the resulting transfer estimate
is likely a significant overestimate.
The regression calculates a distribution of outside-option wages
for each worker. The Department considered two methods: (1) Using the
50th percentile and (2) using the same percentile for each worker as
they currently earn in the distribution of wages for wait staff and
bartenders in restaurants and drinking places in the state where they
live.\31\ The second method accounts for the fact that two workers may
have the exact same characteristics (age, race, education, etc.), but
one worker may have a higher or lower outside-option wage because he or
she is a more or less effective employee. This method assumes that a
worker's position in the wage distribution for wait staff and
bartenders in restaurants and drinking places reflects his or her
position in the wage distribution for the outside-option occupations.
The Department believes this method is more appropriate than the 50th
percentile method.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Because of the uncertainty in the estimate of the
percentile ranking of the worker's current wage, the Department used
the midpoint percentile for workers in each decile. For example,
workers whose current wage was estimated to be in the zero to tenth
percentile range were assigned the predicted fifth percentile
outside-option wage, those with wages estimated to be in the
eleventh to twentieth percentile were assigned the predicted
fifteenth percentile outside-option wage, etc.
\32\ The 50th percentile method results in a higher transfer
estimate ($176 million, compared to $109 million).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To calculate the outside option wage, the Department first
calculated the hourly wage decile (including tips) for each of the
tipped workers identified above (i.e., in a tipped occupation/industry
and report earning OTTC), relative to other tipped workers.\33\ Second,
the Department ran quantile regressions of the hourly wages of workers
in non-tipped occupations that are similar to the tipped workers'
occupations (Appendix Table 1). The regressions controlled for state
dummy variables, education level, sex, age, race, citizenship status,
marital status, veteran status, and metropolitan area status. Workers
reporting an hourly wage with overtime, tips, and commissions of less
than $7.25 were excluded from this analysis.\34\ The regression results
are included in Appendix A. Third, based on the regression estimates,
the Department calculated a predicted wage in a non-tipped occupation
for each worker in a tipped occupation, for each of the ten deciles.
The Department then used the predicted wage from the decile regression
applicable to each tipped worker (i.e., based on his or her wage
percentile) as his or her outside wage. Lastly, for the workers in
tipped occupations, the Department removed some that did not have
applicable data, including workers as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ All workers in tipped occupations/industries earning at
least $7.25/hour when including tips were broken into deciles. This
sample included about 1,500 observations (representing approximately
1.3 million workers) in the non-excluded states.
\34\ The quantile regressions using non-tipped workers in
comparable occupations included 21,086 observations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without wage data,
with negative or zero tips (after removing overtime pay),
with hourly wages including tips less than or equal to
than their outside option wage, and
with hourly wages including tips less than the state
minimum wage.
After making these exclusions, the analysis includes 237
observations.\35\ Upon adjusting the universe of observations for
employees who report earning tips, residing in states that may be
impacted by this rule, individuals reporting wages lower than the
applicable minimum wage, and those reporting wages higher than the
minimum wage, only 37 observations remain, representing 24,743
workers.\36\ The Department does not know the degree to which the
reduced sample size may impact the findings of its analysis.
Nonetheless, the Department remains confident that the outside option
calculation is of sufficient merit to retain it in the analysis,
insofar as it is instructive in setting an approximate upper bound for
the potential total transfers due to tip pooling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Based on the original CPS methodology, these observations
were calculated to represent 205,170 individuals. Due to the
subsequent calculations conducted in this analysis, the Department
remains confident in its findings but recognizes methodological
constraints may impact the ability to extrapolate the findings
across the originally representative universe with as much accuracy.
\36\ The same constraints apply to this extrapolation as
described in the previous footnote, to an even greater degree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI), in their comment,
asserted that the assumptions used to calculate the Department's
outside option were flawed because they do not account for the search
and travel costs that an employee would incur when deciding to change
jobs. According to IPI, this caused the Department to overestimate the
value of the outside-option wage for affected workers, leading to an
underestimate in the overall size of the transfer. The Department
acknowledges that search and travel costs are part of an employee's
decision to leave his or her current job, but believes these costs to
be relatively minimal (due to being time-limited) and highly variable
from employee to employee and location to location. The Department does
not have data to estimate these and other highly individualized costs
employees might face in considering their outside option nor does the
commenter provide or address them. Instead, the Department's outside
option regression controls for location and other factors that may
relate to differences in these costs.
2. Per Worker Transfer Calculation
After determining each tipped worker's outside-option wage, the
Department calculated the potential transferrable tips as the lesser of
the following four numbers:
A. The positive differential between a worker's current earnings
(wage plus tips) and his or her predicted outside-option wage,
B. The positive differential between a worker's current earnings
and the state minimum wage,
C. The total tips earned by the worker, or
D. Zero if the worker currently earns a direct cash wage above the
full applicable minimum wage.
The second number is included for cases where the outside-option
wage predicted by the analysis is below the
[[Page 86781]]
state minimum wage, because the worker will not earn less than his or
her applicable state minimum wage. The third number is included because
the maximum potential tips that can be transferred from an employee
cannot be greater than his or her total tips. Total tips for each
worker were calculated from the OTTC variable in the CPS data. For
hourly-paid workers, the Department subtracted predicted overtime pay
to better estimate total tips.\37\ For workers who reported receiving
overtime, tips, and commissions, but did not report the amount they
earned, the Department applied the ratio of tipped earnings to total
earnings for all waiters and waitresses and bartenders in their state
(see Table 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Predicted overtime pay is calculated as (1.5 x base wage) x
weekly hours worked over 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department set the transfer to zero if the worker currently
earns a direct cash wage above the full applicable minimum wage. If the
employer is paying a tipped employee a direct cash wage above the
required full minimum wage, this indicates the wage is set at the
market clearing wage and any reduction in the wage (e.g., by requiring
tips to be transferred to back-of-the-house workers) would cause the
employee to quit and look for other work commensurate with the value
they provide. Therefore, where an employer is paying a tipped employee
above the full applicable minimum wage, the Department assumes the
employer would generally not require the employee to contribute tips to
a nontraditional tip pool.
The Department includes an example to demonstrate how the outside
option and the hourly transfers are calculated. Suppose a worker, with
tips, earns $16.82 per hour. She earns a direct cash wage of $8.33 per
hour, which is the relevant state minimum wage (both values adjusted to
2019 dollars using the GDP deflator), and $8.49 per hour in tips. The
outside option wage for her wage decile is $15.44. We then calculate
the following values:
Hourly wage ($16.82) minus state minimum wage ($8.33): $8.49
hourly wage ($16.82) minus outside option wage ($15.44): $1.38
hourly tips ($16.82 minus $8.33): $8.49
The lesser of these three numbers is $1.38 per hour; therefore,
hourly transfers are determined to be $1.38.
One notable constraint to this methodology is that it does not
account for variations in total number of hours worked or the number of
weeks worked per year, which have a direct impact on compensation.\38\
If the averages of usual hours differ between a restaurant service job
and an outside option, not adjusting the resultant figures accordingly
could present a transfer estimate above or below reality. For example,
a bartender working 4 hours per night and 5 days per week might make
$30 per hour, but work only 20 hours per week (earning $600 per week).
Comparing that wage to her outside option wage, set at $20 per hour but
with 40 hours per week, would result in a $10 per hour loss, totaling
$200 per week. Yet in reality she would earn more in the outside option
role than in the original restaurant service role ($800 total, or $200
more), and the transfer calculation could be drastically overestimated.
Conversely, the outside option transfer calculation would be
underestimated if the same bartender works five 12-hour shifts at the
same wage rate. The Department recognizes this as a constraint to its
approach. It nonetheless maintains that the resultant transfer estimate
is instructive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ On average, from the dataset employed for the regression
analysis, the tipped workers included in the outside option
calculation usually work 14 percent fewer hours per week than the
non-tipped workers included in the regression (30 hours versus 35
hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Total Annual Transfer
Next, the Department estimates total weekly transfers. Estimated
per worker hourly transfers were multiplied by usual hours to estimate
weekly transfers per worker (on average $192.40 per week). Estimated
weekly transfers were then aggregated over the relevant population
(24,743 workers, based on the 37 CPS observations in the refined
employee universe).
To determine the potential annual total tip transfer, the
Department first multiplied the estimated weighted sum of weekly tip
transfers for all wait staff and bartenders who work at full-service
restaurants and bars in the United States by 45.2 weeks--the average
weeks worked in a year for waiters and waitresses and bartenders in the
2017 CPS Annual Social and Economic Supplement. Using this methodology,
the maximum possible transfer from front-of-the-house employees is
estimated not to exceed $217.2 million (24,743 workers x $194.20 per
week x 45.2 weeks).\39\ This represents the total transfers that the
Department estimates would occur in the extremely unlikely situation
where every employer that does not take a tip credit institutes tip
pools that include back-of-the-house workers and where none of the
front-of-the-house workers see an increase in total tips. In reality,
even when it is seemingly economically beneficial when considering the
wage dimension, many employers may not change their tip pooling
practices because it would require changes to current practices to
which they and their employees are accustomed, including their payroll
and recordkeeping systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ An additional source of uncertainty with regard to the
magnitude of the estimated transfers is due to sampling error, the
use of sample data to make inferences about the population. The
estimated standard error on the point estimate of total potential
tip transfers per year is large. The 95 percent confidence interval
around this estimate is $128.6 million to $305.3 million, a 41
percent swing either higher or lower than the provided estimate.
Additionally, this confidence interval itself is too narrow due to
the inability to take into account the stratified sampling design of
the CPS, which means the spread is likely larger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department was unable to determine what proportion of the total
tips estimated to be potentially transferred from these workers will
realistically be transferred. For a range of reasons presented in this
analysis, the Department expects that the potential transfers fall
significantly below the above-calculated $217.2 million, and therefore
considered the midpoint between this amount and zero to be a reasonable
estimate of the potential transfers. The Department accordingly
estimates that transfers of tips from front-of-the-house workers will
be $109 million in the first year that this rule is effective. Assuming
these transfers occur annually, and there is no real wage growth, this
results in 10-year annualized transfers of $109 million at both the 3
percent and 7 percent discount rates. These transfers, in and of
themselves, could have benefits which are discussed further below.
The $217 million transfer amount could also be an overestimation
because employers do not have perfect information about employees'
outside option wages. Employers could decide not to implement a
nontraditional tip pool in order to ensure that they do not lose any of
their front-of-the-house workers.
The earnings reduction for front-of-house workers could also be
reduced if instituting a nontraditional tip pool leads to increased
cooperation and productivity among workers, which the Department
expects will occur. This, in turn, could lead to better service for
customers, and higher tip amounts. Such effects would be categorized as
benefits of the rule, rather than transfers, so please see section
V.B.iii.3. for further discussion of these potential benefits.
As noted above, the Department acknowledges that it is possible
some employers might choose to respond to
[[Page 86782]]
the rule by decreasing back-of-the-house workers' wages, as the rule
will allow these employees' wages to be supplemented with tips, and
such an outcome is what is modeled to produce the $109 million estimate
of transfers from front-of-house employees to employers. (The
Department notes that, because employers cannot take a tip credit for
employees in nontraditional tip pools, an employer who institutes such
a program would be precluded from taking a tip credit for their front-
of-the-house workers and would have to pay those workers at least the
full minimum wage.)
Furthermore, although some employers may consider implementing a
tip pooling system that substitutes back-of-the-house workers' hourly
wages for tips, tips fluctuate at any given time. Thus, employers'
ability to do so would be limited by market forces, such as,
potentially, workers' aversion to risk and the endowment effect
(workers potentially valuing their set wages more than tips of the same
average amount). Furthermore, the minimum wage limits an employer's
ability to decrease back-of-the-house wages. In the NPRM, the
Department stated that it lacked data to quantify the extent to which
this will occur, and this remains true. The Department requested
information during the comment period on this point and received no
applicable data.
In its comment, IPI asserted that the Department's transfer
calculation wrongly assumes the restaurant industry is perfectly
competitive. According to IPI's comment, the assumption of perfect
competition underestimates the degree to which employers will be able
to transfer wages from employees and understates the total volume of
transfers. The Department acknowledges that, the less competitive the
labor market, the greater the ability of employers to reduce worker
wages to an amount near the minimum wage.\40\ However, the Department
does not have sufficient information to estimate the magnitude of this
effect beyond the controls it already applied in its outside-options
regression, and maintains that existing data on average wages indicate
that employers face constraints consistent with market competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ The Department further notes, however, that even a worker
who receives minimum wage and also participates in the tip pool will
in every conceivable scenario make more than a worker whose sole
compensation is the minimum wage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters asserted that the Department failed to provide a
quantitative analysis of the potential transfer between employees and
employers. For example, IPI suggested that, ``DOL could, using its
already stated assumptions, isolate the subset of employers that would
be able to capture the transfer. The Department could then construct a
range of values for that subset using the same data sources and methods
used to construct the overall transfer estimate.'' The Department
acknowledges that employers could ultimately capture some transfers, as
stated above. Employers would be more able to lower the base wages of
back-of-the-house employees, and therefore capture the transfer, over a
longer time horizon. It is unlikely that they could immediately lower
wages of existing employees. Importantly, by instituting a
nontraditional tip pool, employers would disqualify themselves from
taking a tip credit for front-of-the-house workers, which is already
permitted by law. Moreover, it is probably less complex and more direct
for employers to continue such established arrangements than it is to
set up a new nontraditional tip pool to reduce overall employee wages,
if that is their objective.
Finally, even if employers are able to lower the base wages of
back-of-the-house employees, it is possible that they would reinvest
these wage savings back into the business, or use it to generate
additional efficiencies. This, in turn, could lead to improvements in
the overall customer experience, which could lead to customers leaving
higher tips. This increase in tips would ultimately benefit all
employees in the tip pool.
Employers face a strong incentive to take action that will boost
productivity and maximize long-term profits. The Department did not
attempt to account for this point in the outside option analysis, but
nonetheless holds that employers face real incentives. All of the
employers in the population sample used for the regression analysis are
eligible to take a tip credit, and therefore already have means by
which to transfer tips to themselves via reduced wait staff wages if
that were their goal. Thus, the employers who decide to implement tip
pooling will likely do so because they believe it will boost
productivity and profits. If employees have the incentive for greater
cooperation because they all share in the tip pool, it is quite
possible the quality of service will increase and result in a higher
absolute value of tips in the pool. Consider a cook who, motivated by
his participation in a tip pool, walks past a table and decides to stop
and chat for a minute to ask about how the patrons are enjoying the
food--this would likely be well received and may very well result in
higher tips in the pool, in which the cook would now be eligible to
partake. Conceivably, such quality and efficiency improvements could
result in back-of-the-house and front-of-the-house workers all
receiving higher tipped wages.
One commenter, IPI, said that the Department should consider social
costs and transfers when promulgating this rule, such as an increase in
reliance on public benefits and adverse health consequences. If total
compensation were reduced and if that reduction caused individual
workers to rely on public benefits, then the transfers described as
being borne by front-of-house workers would instead be partially borne
by the Federal, state, or local government funding the benefits
program. However, such an outcome is uncertain, and an attempted
analysis of it would be characterized by lack of data. The Department
notes that these same or newly hired workers may receive more
compensation due to the rule and thus there could be a reduction in any
reliance they presently have on social welfare benefits.
iii. Estimated Costs, Cost Savings, and Benefits
In this subsection, the Department addresses costs attributable to
the rule, by quantifying regulatory familiarization costs and
qualitatively discussing additional recordkeeping costs. The Department
qualitatively discusses benefits and cost savings associated with the
rule. Lastly, the Department qualitatively discusses the potential
costs, transfers, and benefits associated with the revisions to Sec.
531.56(e).
1. Regulatory Familiarization Costs
Regulatory familiarization costs represent direct costs to
businesses associated with reviewing the new regulation. It is not
clear whether regulatory familiarization costs are a function of the
number of establishments or the number of firms.\41\ Presumably, the
headquarters of a firm will conduct the regulatory review for
businesses with multiple restaurants, and may also require chain
restaurants to familiarize themselves with the regulation at the
establishment level. To
[[Page 86783]]
reduce the chance of underestimating costs, the Department used the
number of establishments in its cost estimate--which is larger than the
number of firms--and assumes that regulatory familiarization occurs at
both the headquarters and establishment levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ An establishment is commonly understood as a single
economic unit, such as a farm, a mine, a factory, or a store, that
produces goods or services. Establishments are typically at one
physical location and engaged in one, or predominantly one, type of
economic activity for which a single industrial classification may
be applied. An establishment is in contrast to a firm, or a company,
which is a business and may consist of one or more establishments,
where each establishment may participate in a different predominant
economic activity. See BLS, ``Quarterly Census of Employment and
Wages: Concepts,'' https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/cew/concepts.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department assumes that all establishments will incur some
regulatory familiarization costs regardless of whether the employer
decides to change its tip pooling practices as a result of the
rule.\42\ There may be differences in familiarization cost by the size
of establishments; however, our analysis does not compute different
costs for establishments of different sizes. To estimate the total
regulatory familiarization costs, the Department used (1) the number of
establishments in the two industries, Drinking Places (Alcoholic
Beverages) and Full-Service Restaurants; (2) the wage rate for the
employees reviewing the rule; and (3) the number of hours that it
estimates employers will spend reviewing the rule. Table 3 shows the
number of establishments in the two industries. To estimate the number
of potentially affected establishments, the Department used data from
BLS's Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) for 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ This includes establishments in states excluded from the
transfer calculation.
Table 3--Number of Establishments With Tipped Workers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Establishments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 722410 (Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages)).. 42,912
NAICS 722511 (Full-service Restaurants)............... 250,056
-----------------
Total............................................. 292,968
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: QCEW, 2019.
The Department assumes that a Compensation, Benefits, and Job
Analysis Specialist (SOC 13-1141) (or a staff member in a similar
position) with a mean wage of $33.58 per hour in 2019 will review the
rule.\43\ Given the change in this rule, the Department assumes that it
will take on average about 15 minutes to review the final rule. The
Department has selected a small time estimate because it is an average
for both establishments making changes to their compensation structure
and those who are not (and consequently will have negligible or no
regulatory familiarization costs). Further, the change effected by this
regulation is unlikely to cause major burdens or costs. Assuming
benefits are paid at a rate of 46 percent of the base wage, and
overhead costs are 17 percent of the base wage, the reviewer's
effective hourly rate is $54.74; thus, the average cost per
establishment is $13.68 for 15 minutes of review time. The number of
establishments in the selected industries was 292,968 in 2019.
Therefore, regulatory familiarization costs in Year 1 are estimated to
be $4.01 million ($13.68 x 292,968 establishments), which amounts to a
10-year annualized cost of $469,902 at a discount rate of 3 percent or
$570,700 at a discount rate of 7 percent. Regulatory familiarization
costs in future years are assumed to be de minimis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ A Compensation/Benefits Specialist ensures company
compliance with Federal and state laws, including reporting
requirements; evaluates job positions, determining classification,
exempt or non-exempt status, and salary; plans, develops, evaluates,
improves, and communicates methods and techniques for selecting,
promoting, compensating, evaluating, and training workers. See BLS,
``13-1141 Compensation, Benefits, and Job Analysis Specialists,''
https://www.bls.gov/oes-current-oes131141.htm (last visited July 27,
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Other Costs
The Department also assumes that there will be a minimal increase
in recordkeeping costs associated with this rule. Under the
Department's previous regulations, employers were only required to keep
records of which employees receive tips, the hours those employees
worked, and how much each employee receives if the employer takes a tip
credit. Some employers also kept records of the time employees spent on
tipped duties and non-tipped duties to demonstrate compliance with the
Department's 80/20 approach to enforcing the dual-jobs regulation.
Under this rule, employers that do not take a tip credit but collect
tips to institute a mandatory tip pool must keep records showing which
employees are included in the tip pool, and the amount of tips they
receive, as reported by employees to the employer. As those records are
already required under IRS Form 4070, there will be minimal additional
recordkeeping costs for employers that pay the full Federal minimum
wage in direct cash wages and choose to institute a nontraditional tip
pool.
Employers may incur some training costs associated with
familiarizing first line managers and staff with the rule; however, the
Department believes these costs will be de minimis.
3. Benefits
In their comment, IPI stated that the Department should better
support its assertions regarding the proposed rule's benefits. In
response, the Department has further elaborated on the benefits
discussed in this section.
Section 3(m)'s tip credit language allows an employer to meet a
portion of its Federal minimum wage obligation from the tips customers
give employees. If an employer takes a tip credit, section 3(m)(2)(A)
applies, along with its requirement that only employees who customarily
and regularly receive tips be included in any mandatory tip pool. When
an employer does not take a tip credit, however, the rule would allow
the employer to act in a manner currently prohibited by regulation--
that is, by distributing tips to employees who are employed in
occupations in which they do not customarily and regularly receive tips
(e.g., cooks or dishwashers) through a tip pool. The rule, therefore,
gives employers greater flexibility in determining their pay policies
for tipped and non-tipped workers. Allowing employers and employees to
structure tip pools in a manner that fits the needs of their business
will improve efficiency and enhance cooperation amongst employees. By
creating an atmosphere of cooperation, diminishing incentives for
employees to unduly compete amongst themselves, and allowing workers at
all levels to profit directly from quality service, employers with
nontraditional tip pools may realize efficiencies and take on more
business and more tips. This could cause an overall increase in
business, employment, tips, and wages for all workers, not to mention
increased job security and job satisfaction.
The Department conducted a literature review of relevant academic
studies that address the nexus of service quality and remuneration. One
analysis
[[Page 86784]]
has suggested that tip pooling promotes and rewards cooperation among
employees as serving customers is often a cooperative endeavor among
front- and back-of-the-house employees; this study further suggests
that tip pooling leads to uniformly better service, which in turn,
leads to increased patronage and increased tipping.\44\ Another study
indicates that tip pooling may foster customer-focused service, promote
employee camaraderie, and increase productivity.\45\ Additionally,
under the changes in this rule and per the transfer analysis discussed
above, the employer will be able to distribute customer tips to back-
of-the-house employees like cooks and dishwashers, possibly resulting
in increased earnings for those employees. This would allow employers
to hire more or higher quality workers for those roles. Finally, the
Department believes that allowing employers to expand tip pools beyond
customarily and regularly tipped workers like servers and bartenders
could help incentivize back-of-the-house workers to perform better,
which may improve the customer's experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Samuel Estreicher & Jonathan R. Nash, The Case for Tipping
and Unrestricted Tip-Pooling: Promoting Intrafirm Cooperation, 59
B.C.L. Rev. 1 (2018), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol59/iss1/2.
\45\ Ofer H. Azar, The Implications of Tipping for Economics and
Management, 30 (10) Int'l J. Soc. Econ., 1084-94 (2003), http://individual.utoronto.ca/diep/c/azar2003.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, Estreicher and Nash (2018) assert that tip pooling
leads to uniformly better service, which in turn, leads to increased
tipping.\46\ The potential for increased tipping deserves some
additional consideration. Theoretically, if the tip pool amount
increases due to improved service, then the possible reduction in
earnings noted in the transfer analysis for front-of-the-house workers
could be overestimated. The Department conducted a literature review of
both (1) the direct relationship between tip pooling and tips and (2)
the indirect relationship between dining experience and tips received.
The Department did not identify studies that show a direct empirical
relationship between tip pooling and tip levels, although studies such
as Estreicher and Nash (2018) present related findings. There is some
literature on the relationship between dining quality (e.g., service
quality, food quality) and tip amounts. However, much of this
literature is based on relatively small, locality-specific, non-
representative samples. That does not mean their findings are
inaccurate, but tempers the Department's interest in extrapolating the
findings across the U.S. economy. Several particularly applicable
papers are briefly described here. The key takeaway is the relationship
between dining quality and tip amount varies, so, despite having
relative confidence in the direction of the impact (i.e., improved
quality leads to higher tips), the amount non-traditional tip pooling
may impact tips is unknown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Samuel Estreicher & Jonathan R. Nash, The Case for Tipping
and Unrestricted Tip-Pooling: Promoting Intrafirm Cooperation, 59
B.C.L. Rev. 1 (2018), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol59/iss1/2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The literature generally found a positive but small to moderate
impact of quality of service on tips. The following are examples:
Conlin, Lynn, and O'Donoghue (2003) find that a one-point
increase in service quality (on scale from 1 to 5) increases tip
percent by either 1.43 or 1.464 percentage points (depending on the
model, both statistically significant).\47\ The average tip percent is
17.56 percent so this is approximately an 8 percent increase. A one-
point increase in food quality (which may improve after implementation
of a non-traditional tip pool) increased the tip percent by either
0.585 or 1.481 percentage points (depending on the model; only the
latter is statistically significant).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Conlin, M., Lynn, M., and O'Donoghue, T. (2003). The Norm
of Restaurant Tipping. Retrieved October 16, 2020 from Cornell
University, School of Hospitality Administration site: http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/articles/133.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn (2003) finds that service ratings explained an
average of less than two percent of the variation in a restaurant's tip
percentages.\48\ Although the paper cites empirical findings of
increases in tips for servers who take certain actions (e.g., smiling,
writing ``thank you'' on check, drawing a picture such as a smiley face
on check), actions taken by back-of-the-house workers may also increase
tips.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Lynn, M. (2003). Tip Levels and Service: An Update,
Extension, and Reconciliation. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly. October-December.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bodvarsson and Gibson (1997) estimated that within the
seven central Minnesota restaurants in their survey, a one unit
increase in service quality (on a scale of 1-5) was associated with
slightly higher tips (0.44 to 0.54 percent of the bill or $0.14 on
average).\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Bodvarsson, B. and Gibson, W.A. (1997). Economics and
Restaurant Gratuities: Determining Tip Rates. The American Journal
of Economics and Sociology, 56(2): 187-203, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1536-7150.1997.tb03460.x.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whaley, Kim, and Kim (2019) find that tipping size is
positively related to server quality, food quality, and ambiance
(although indirectly and occur through an intermediary variable of
customer value).\50\ However, the magnitudes of these impacts on tips
are relatively small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Whaley, J., Kim, S., and Kim, Y. (2019). Drivers and Impact
of Restaurant Tipping Behavior, Journal of Foodservice Business
Research, 22:2, 117-131, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15378020.2019.1570773.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Cost Savings
The cost savings associated with this rule would result in part
from the increased earnings for back-of-the-house employees. Higher
earnings for these employees could result in reduced turnover, which
reduces hiring and training costs for employers. This rule will also
give employers greater flexibility for tip pooling, and could reduce
effort spent ensuring that the tip pool is limited to only customarily
and regularly tipped employees. The Department believes that the cost
savings would outweigh any increased rule-familiarization and
recordkeeping costs.
This rule may also reduce deadweight loss. Deadweight loss is the
loss of economic efficiency that occurs when the perfectly competitive
equilibrium in a market for a good or service is not achieved. Minimum
wages may prevent the market from reaching equilibrium and thus result
in fewer hours worked than would otherwise be efficient. Allowing
nontraditional tip pools may cause a shift in the labor demand or
supply curves for wait staff and bartenders. This could result in the
market moving closer to the competitive market equilibrium. Although
deadweight loss reductions are most commonly thought about in
quantitative terms, such as new hiring or expanded hours for existing
workers, quality could be how it manifests itself; in this case,
deadweight loss reduction would be another term for some of the same
benefits discussed elsewhere in this regulatory impact analysis.
The Department did not quantify the potential reduction in
deadweight loss because of uncertainty (e.g., what the appropriate
demand and supply elasticities may be).
5. Costs, Benefits, and Potential Transfers Associated With Revision to
Dual Jobs Regulation
The Department is amending its dual jobs regulation to reflect its
recent guidance replacing the 80/20 approach with the updated related
duties test.
In the NPRM, the Department stated the removal of the arbitrary 20
percent cap on tasks that are not directly tied to receipt of a tip may
result in tipped workers such as wait staff and
[[Page 86785]]
bartenders performing more non-tipped related duties such as ``cleaning
and setting tables, toasting bread, making coffee, and occasionally
washing dishes or glasses.'' Consequently, employment of workers
currently performing these duties, such as dishwashers and cooks, may
fall on the margin. In addition, the Department acknowledged that one
possibility from taking on related, non-tipped duties would be that
tipped workers might lose tipped income by spending more of their time
performing duties where they are not earning tips, while still
receiving cash wages of less than minimum wage (total compensation
would nonetheless remain at or above the minimum wage). However, the
Department did not suggest that this was the only possible outcome;
another distinct possibility, for instance, is that these ``non-
tipped'' activities could result in greater overall tips for the
worker.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ For example, if cleaning and setting tables helps a
restaurant turn over tables more quickly and the server is able to
wait on one additional party at each table during a shift, the
``non-tipped'' work may, in fact, result in an increase in the total
tip and total compensation that the employee receives for a shift.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department stated that it lacked the data to quantify any
potential reduction in tips or employment, because data does not exist
on the amount of time that tipped employees currently spend on tipped
duties or related, non-tipped duties.\52\ Several commenters criticized
the Department's lack of a quantitative analysis, but did not
themselves provide data on the amount of time that tipped employees
currently spend on tipped or related, tipped duties. See, e.g., NELP,
NELA; State Attorneys General; National Women's Law Center; Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights. The Economic Policy Institute
(EPI), in particular, asserted that the removal of the 20 percent cap
on related duties could cost workers millions each year. In its
comment, EPI cited to a blog post where it had published an analysis
claiming, ``the proposed rule would cost workers more than $700 million
annually if finalized.'' \53\ EPI argued that employers will
``exploit'' this new regulation by shifting non-tipped work from
traditionally non-tipped to tipped staff, paying an hourly rate less
than the full minimum wage for that work, and then applying a tip
credit from tips received by the tipped staff for tipped work. The blog
post estimates the change in total earnings that could occur if this
shift took place. The Department carefully considered EPI's blog
analysis, but concluded that flaws in EPI's premise and methodology
render the analysis an inadequate estimate of any potential
transfer.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Note that the Department quantified a potential transfer in
the tip pooling portion of this analysis, unlike the impacts due to
the related duties test, because the Department has greater
confidence in the ability to model a simpler system (i.e., interplay
between the minimum wages with and without a tip credit, for front-
of-the-house workers) than the complexities of the related duties
system (e.g., ambiguous baseline, competing incentives of market
actors, uncertain magnitudes of changes, etc.). It is consistent for
the Department to not attempt to quantify impacts for a portion of
the regulation for which it has less confidence in accurately
estimating the input variables for a more dynamic interplay of
factors. The Department requested comments and data to inform these
approaches, and while it received a number of comments, none of them
provided data or sufficient methodological parameters to increase
the Department's confidence in a quantitative analysis.
\53\ The Department notes that the comment itself lacks any
specificity to replicate the estimates it purports to support the
conclusions. To better understand the basis for these assertions,
the Department reviewed the blog post at one point in time (and is
unaware whether the post was modified at any time during the notice
and comment period or thereafter) which itself lacks certain data
and calculations necessary to reproduce it and evaluate its rigor.
Further, because the comment itself merely concludes without the
blog's analysis that transfers would occur, the Department treats
those conclusions as unsupported assertions. However, because the
comment pointed to the blog post and the blog post itself contains a
number of errors, which color the conclusions cited in the comment,
the Department evaluates the blog post here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department conducted additional sensitivity analyses of the
outside-options estimate conducted in the tip pooling section. For
example, two variations were evaluated that more closely align with the
EPI's outside option wage regression used to estimate the impacts of
the 80/20 provision. When EPI's linear regression model is used instead
of a quartile regression, estimated transfers are approximately 42
percent higher, but this analysis did not include control variables,
which the Department believes would better analyze whether location is
simply being captured by the transfer calculation rather than regional
variability. The Department believes a quantile regression is more
appropriate because it compares more similar workers. In addition, EPI
did not include veteran status and metro status as control variables in
the regression; when these are removed from the Department's model, the
results are essentially unchanged. Furthermore, EPI did not provide
information on the methodological specifications, including details on
central assumptions, upon which their analysis relied.
The analysis described in EPI's blog post does not consider the
amount of time tipped employees currently spend on tipped versus
related, non-tipped duties or how this final rule would affect that
amount. Instead, it assumes that the final rule would enable certain
duties-shifting practices that employers may use to reduce tipped
employees' earnings and estimates the amount of that reduction. This
assumption, which undergirds EPI's entire analysis, proceeds from a
fundamental misunderstanding of this final rule and the 80/20 approach
it replaces.
According to the blog post, EPI is concerned that replacing the 80/
20 approach with the final rule would enable the following type of
duties-shifting practice: ``a restaurant that employs a cleaning
service to clean the restaurant each night'' could avoid paying a
direct cash wage of at least the full Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per
hour for cleaning services by ``requir[ing] servers to spend an extra
hour or two performing such work and only pay them the tipped minimum
wage of $2.13 per hour,'' and then applying a tip credit to make up the
difference. However, taking a tip credit under these circumstances is
clearly prohibited under this final rule. Consistent with the
discussion in Section III.D.ii, an employee who performs related, non-
tipped duties for ``an extra hour or two'' each night after the end of
a shift would not be performing those related, non-tipped duties
contemporaneously with tipped duties or for a reasonable time
immediately before or after tipped duties. As such, the employer could
not take a tip credit for time spent on the related, non-tipped duties
performed well after tipped duties. Moreover, the practice that EPI is
concerned about is presently permitted under the 80/20 approach, which
allows a restaurant to apply a tip credit to time a server spends
cleaning each night at the end of his or her shift if the arbitrary
ratio is maintained. For example, a restaurant could apply a tip credit
where it requires its servers to clean the dining area for up to 2
hours after finishing an 8-hour shift.
As a second example, EPI's blog post envisions a situation in which
a restaurant that needs three dishwashers would purposefully employ
only a single dishwasher and ``require all servers to wash dishes
periodically over the course of their shifts'' to fill the expected
gap. Again, this practice is permitted under the 80/20 approach, as
long as the restaurant maintains the arbitrary ratio between tipped
service duties and non-tipped dishwashing duties. A restaurant with a
dozen servers could easily require them to perform the work of two
dishwashers and still maintain the 80/20 ratio
[[Page 86786]]
needed to apply a tip credit to the dishwashing work. But this same
practice would actually not be feasible under the final rule, which
requires related non-tipped dishwashing duties to be performed
contemporaneously or for a reasonable time immediately before or after
tipped service duties. To be sure, a restaurant could theoretically
micromanage servers to ensure that they perform dishwashing and service
duties in close temporal proximity, but that effort would likely be
prohibitively costly. The restaurant would have to hire managers to
supervise servers' minute-by-minute tasks, and major business
disruptions would result because servers' use of time would be dictated
by maintaining temporal proximity between serving and dishwashing,
rather than by any actual need to serve customers or wash dishes.\55\
No rational restaurant would bear these managerial expenses and
business disruptions just to save a maximum of approximately $5 per
hour on dishwashing.\56\ As such, it would be highly infeasible for a
restaurant to shift dishwashing duties onto servers as contemplated by
EPI under the final rule. Furthermore, this does not even begin to
address the shock this supposed shift in duties would deliver to the
underlying business model that relies on many duties occurring
simultaneously to provide quality of service concentrated around common
meal times, which would make it impossible for wait staff and
bartenders to take on the full scope of additional duties that EPI
hypothesized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ The second example in EPI's blog post is distinguishable
from the Department's example in section III.D.ii explaining that
the final rule would permit a hotel to take a tip credit for time
when a bellhop performing related, non-tipped duties in between
serving guests during a slow shift. In the Department's example, the
natural pace of business needs dictates when the bellhop performs
related, non-tipped duties versus tipped customer service duties. By
contrast, in EPI's example, maintaining close temporal proximity
between non-tipped and tipped duties, as oppose to actual business
needs, dictates when servers perform service versus dishwashing
duties. The restaurant would need to direct servers' minute-by-
minute tasks to ensure this artificial objective is given priority
over the restaurant's actual business needs of serving customers and
washing dishes.
\56\ According to EPI's blog post, the duties-shifting enables a
restaurant to pay $2.13 per hour for non-tipped duties instead of
the Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, thus achieve labor cost
saving of $5.12 per hour for the non-tipped duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, EPI's calculation is based entirely on the premise that
replacing the 80/20 approach with this final rule would increase
certain duties-shifting practices that it deems exploitative. But the
opposite may very well be true because those ``exploitative'' practices
are permitted under the 80/20 approach and prohibited under the final
rule. The Department does not believe it is possible to overcome the
flawed premise that is central to EPI's attempt to quantify the
potential transfers occasioned by the rule. That said, the Department
acknowledges that such transfers could occur in some cases, but
believes that employees will nonetheless benefit from this rule. For
instance, replacing the 80/20 approach with this final rule would
prevent the exploitative practices described in EPI's blog post. And
employees may receive higher earnings as a result of the efficiencies
that this rule advances.
As explained in the NPRM, the Department believes there will be
considerable cost savings and efficiencies associated with this change.
In particular, the Department believes--and several commentators
agreed--that by eliminating the cost to scrutinize employees' time to
demonstrate compliance with the 80/20 approach, employers will see a
reduction in regulatory cost and be able to adopt work arrangements
that better serve customers, leading to more business and greater tips.
Additionally, the revisions add clarity by referring to the list of
duties presumed to be related on O*NET. The Department anticipates that
the cost of occasionally referring to O*NET to ensure that employees'
non-tipped duties are related to their tipped duties will be
significantly less than the cost of continually monitoring the time
employees have spent performing particular tasks.
iv. Summary of Transfers and Costs
Below is a summary table of the quantified transfers and costs for
the RIA. Transfer costs in years two through ten are assumed to be the
same as in Year 1.
Table 4--Summary of Transfers and Costs Calculations
[2019 Dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential tip Regulatory
transfers familiarization
(millions) costs (millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$108.6 (range: $0 $4.0
to $217.2).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-Year Annualized Estimates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount Rate................ $108.6 (range: $0 0.5
to $217.2).
7% Discount Rate................ $108.6 (range: $0 0.6
to $217.2).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis--Certification
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, Public Law 104-121 (1996), requires Federal agencies engaged in
rulemaking to consider the impact of their rules on small entities,
consider alternatives to minimize that impact, and solicit public
comment on their analyses. The RFA requires the assessment of the
impact of a regulation on a wide range of small entities, including
small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions. Accordingly, the Department examined the regulatory
requirements of the rule to determine whether they would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In its analysis, the Department used the Small Business
Administration size standards, which determine whether a business
qualifies for small-business status.\57\ According to the 2017
standards, Full-service Restaurants (NAICS 722511) and Drinking Places
(Alcoholic Beverages) (NAICS 722410) have a size standard of $7.5
million in annual revenue.\58\ The Department used this number to
estimate the number of small entities. Any establishments with
[[Page 86787]]
annual sales revenue less than this amount were considered small
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ SBA, Summary of Size Standards by Industry Sector, 2017,
www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards.
\58\ Id., Subsector 722.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department used the U.S. Census Bureau's 2012 Economic Census
to obtain the number of establishments (operating the entire year) and
annual sales/receipts for the two industries in the analysis: Full-
service Restaurants and Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages).\59\ From
annual receipts/sales, the Department can estimate how many
establishments fall under the size standard. Table 5 shows the number
of private, year-round establishments in the two industries by
revenue.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census, Accommodation and
Food Services: Subject Series--Estab. & Firm Size: Summary
Statistics by Sales Size of Establishments for the U.S., 2012,
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml.
\60\ The small-business size standard for the two industries is
$7.5 million in annual revenue. However, the final size category
reported in the table is $5 million-$9 million. This is a data
limitation because the 2012 Economic Census reported this category
of $5 million-$9 million and not $5 million-$7.5 million. Thus, the
total number of firms shown may be slightly higher than the actual
number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department assumes that a Compensation, Benefits, and Job
Analysis Specialist (SOC 13-1141) (or a staff member in a similar
position) with a mean wage of $33.58 per hour in 2019 will review the
rule.\61\ Given the change in this rule, the Department assumes that it
will take on average about 15 minutes to review the final rule. The
Department has selected a small time estimate because it is an average
for both establishments making changes to their compensation structure
and those who are not (and consequently will have negligible or no
regulatory familiarization costs). Further, the change effected by this
regulation is unlikely to cause major burdens or costs. Assuming
benefits are paid at a rate of 46 percent of the base wage, and
overhead costs are 17 percent of the base wage, the reviewer's
effective hourly rate is $54.74; thus, the average cost per
establishment is $13.68 for 15 minutes of review time. The Department
applied this cost to all sizes of establishments since each
establishment would incur this cost regardless of the number of
affected workers. Finally, the impact of this rule was calculated as
the ratio of annual cost per establishment to average sales receipts
per establishment. As shown, the annual cost per establishment is less
than 0.02 percent of average annual sales for establishments in all
small entity size classes. The impact of this rule on small
establishments will be de minimis. The Department certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ A Compensation/Benefits Specialist ensures company
compliance with Federal and state laws, including reporting
requirements; evaluates job positions, determining classification,
exempt or non-exempt status, and salary; plans, develops, evaluates,
improves, and communicates methods and techniques for selecting,
promoting, compensating, evaluating, and training workers. See BLS,
``13-1141 Compensation, Benefits, and Job Analysis Specialists,''
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes131141.htm (last visited July 27,
2020).
Table 5--Costs to Small Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual Annual cost per
Number of sales per Annual cost per establishment as
Annual revenue/sales/receipts establishments \a\ establishment ($) establishment ($) percent of sales/
\b\ \c\ receipts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
722511 Full-Service Restaurants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<$100,000....................... 10,211 $69,548 $13.68 0.02
$100,000 to $499,999............ 28,651 197,202 13.68 0.01
$250,000 to $499,999............ 39,554 412,801 13.68 0.00
$500,000 to $999,999............ 46,793 806,378 13.68 0.00
$1,000,000 to $2,499,999........ 45,173 1,759,168 13.68 0.00
$2,500,000 to $4,999,999........ 17,039 3,816,221 13.68 0.00
$5,000,000 to $9,999,999........ 3,531 7,252,978 13.68 0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
722410 Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<$100,000....................... 4,622 70,992 13.68 0.02
$100,000 to $249,999............ 11,610 192,269 13.68 0.01
$250,000 to $499,999............ 9,059 394,111 13.68 0.00
$500,000 to $999,999............ 5,138 775,656 13.68 0.00
$1,000,000 to $2,499,999........ 3,386 1,694,767 13.68 0.00
$2,500,000 to $4,999,999........ 755 3,772,747 13.68 0.00
$5,000,000 to $9,999,999........ 164 7,445,953 13.68 0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Limited to establishments operated for the entire year.
\b\ Inflated to $2019 using the GDP deflator.
\c\ The annual cost per establishment is the regulatory familiarization cost per establishment calculated in
section V.B.iii.1.
VII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Analysis
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532, requires
agencies to prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment
of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing any Federal mandate
that may result in excess of $100 million (adjusted annually for
inflation) in expenditures in any one year by state, local, and tribal
governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector. This rulemaking
is not expected to affect state, local, or tribal governments. While
this rulemaking would affect employers in the private sector, it is not
expected to result in expenditures greater than $100 million in any one
year. See section V.B for an assessment of anticipated costs and
benefits to the private sector.
VIII. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The Department has reviewed this final rule in accordance with
Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism and determined that it does
not have federalism implications. The final rule would not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of
[[Page 86788]]
power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
IX. Executive Order 13175, Indian Tribal Governments
This final rule would not have substantial direct effects on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
List of Subjects
29 CFR Part 10
Administrative practice and procedure, Construction industry,
Government procurement, Law enforcement, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Wages.
29 CFR Part 516
Minimum wages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
29 CFR Part 531
Wages.
29 CFR Part 578
Penalties, Wages.
29 CFR Part 579
Child labor, Penalties.
29 CFR Part 580
Administrative practice and procedure, Child labor, Penalties,
Wages.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 21st day of December, 2020.
Cheryl M. Stanton,
Administrator, Wage and Hour Division.
For the reasons set forth above, the Department amends title 29,
parts 10, 516, 531, 578, 579, and 580 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 10--ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM WAGE FOR CONTRACTORS
0
1. The authority citation for part 10 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; section 4, E.O. 13658, 79 FR 9851, 3
CFR, 2014 Comp., p. 219; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 01-2014
(Dec. 19, 2014), 79 FR 77527 (Dec. 24, 2014).
0
2. Amend Sec. 10.28 by revising paragraphs (b)(2), (c), (e), and (f)
to read as follows:
Sec. 10.28 Tipped employees.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2)(i) In some situations an employee is employed in a dual job,
as, for example, where a maintenance person in a hotel also works as a
server. In such a situation the employee, if he or she customarily and
regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips for his or her work as
a server, is a tipped employee only with respect to his or her
employment as a server. The employee is employed in two occupations,
and no tip credit can be taken for his or her hours of employment in
the occupation of maintenance person.
(ii) Such a situation is distinguishable from that of an employee
who spends time performing duties that are related to his or her tip-
producing occupation but not themselves directed toward producing tips.
For example, a server may spend part of his or her time cleaning and
setting tables, toasting bread, making coffee, and occasionally washing
dishes or glasses. Likewise, a counter attendant may also prepare his
or her own short orders or may, as part of a group of counter
attendants, take a turn as a short order cook for the group. An
employer may take a tip credit for any hours that an employee performs
related, non-tipped duties contemporaneously with his or her tipped
duties, or for a reasonable time immediately before or after performing
the tipped duties.
(iii) In addition to the examples described in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)
of this section, a non-tipped duty is presumed to be related to a tip-
producing occupation if the duty is listed as a task in the description
of the tip-producing occupation in the Occupational Information Network
(O*NET) at www.onetonline.org. Occupations not listed in O*NET may
qualify as tipped occupations. For those occupations, duties usually
and customarily performed by employees are presumed to be related
duties as long as they are included in the list of duties performed in
similar O*NET occupations.
(c) Characteristics of tips. A tip is a sum presented by a customer
as a gift or gratuity in recognition of some service performed for the
customer. It is to be distinguished from payment of a fixed charge, if
any, made for the service. Whether a tip is to be given, and its
amount, are matters determined solely by the customer. Customers may
present cash tips directly to the employee or may designate a tip
amount to be added to their bill when paying with a credit card or by
other electronic means. Special gifts in forms other than money or its
equivalent such as theater tickets, passes, or merchandise, are not
counted as tips received by the employee for purposes of determining
wages paid under the Executive order.
* * * * *
(e) Tip pooling. Where tipped employees share tips through a tip
pool, only the amounts retained by the tipped employees after any
redistribution through a tip pool are considered tips in applying the
provisions of FLSA section 3(t) and the wage payment provisions of
section 3 of the Executive order. There is no maximum contribution
percentage on mandatory tip pools. However, an employer must notify its
employees of any required tip pool contribution amount, may only take a
tip credit for the amount of tips each employee ultimately receives,
and may not retain any of the employees' tips for any other purpose.
(f) Notice. An employer is not eligible to take the tip credit
unless it has informed its tipped employees in advance of the
employer's use of the tip credit. The employer must inform the tipped
employee of the amount of the cash wage that is to be paid by the
employer, which cannot be lower than the cash wage required by
paragraph (a)(1) of this section; the additional amount by which the
wages of the tipped employee will be considered increased on account of
the tip credit claimed by the employer, which amount may not exceed the
value of the tips actually received by the employee; that all tips
received by the tipped employee must be retained by the employee except
for a tip pooling arrangement; and that the tip credit shall not apply
to any worker who has not been informed of the requirements in this
section.
PART 516--RECORDS TO BE KEPT BY EMPLOYERS
0
3. Revise the authority citation for part 516 to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 11, Pub. L. 75-718, 52 Stat. 1066, as amended
(29 U.S.C. 211). Section 516.28 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 203(m),
as amended by sec. 2105(b), Pub. L. 104-188, 110 Stat. 1755; sec.
8102(a), Pub. L. 110-28, 121 Stat. 112; and sec. 1201, Div. S., Tit.
XII, Pub. L. 115-141, 132 Stat. 348. Section 516.33 also issued
under Pub. L. 75-718, 52 Stat. 1060, as amended (29 U.S.C. 201 et
seq.). Section 516.34 also issued under Sec. 7, Pub. L. 101-157, 103
Stat. 944 (29 U.S.C. 207(q)).
0
4. Amend Sec. 516.28 by revising the section heading and adding
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 516.28 Tipped employees and employer-administered tip pools.
* * * * *
(b) With respect to employees who receive tips but for whom a tip
credit is not taken under section 3(m)(2)(A), any employer that
collects tips received by employees to operate a mandatory tip-pooling
or tip-sharing arrangement shall maintain and preserve payroll or other
records containing the information and
[[Page 86789]]
data required in Sec. 516.2(a) and, in addition, the following:
(1) A symbol, letter, or other notation placed on the pay records
identifying each employee who receive tips.
(2) Weekly or monthly amount reported by the employee, to the
employer, of tips received (this may consist of reports made by the
employees to the employer on IRS Form 4070).
PART 531--WAGE PAYMENTS UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938
0
5. Revise the authority citation for part 531 to read as follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 203(m) and (t), as amended by sec. 3(m),
Pub. L. 75-718, 52 Stat. 1060; sec. 2, Pub. L. 87-30, 75 Stat. 65;
sec. 101, sec. 602, Pub. L. 89-601, 80 Stat. 830; sec. 29(B), Pub.
L. 93-259, 88 Stat. 55 sec. 3, sec. 15(c), Pub. L. 95-151, 91 Stat
1245; sec. 2105(b), Pub. L. 104-188, 110 Stat 1755; sec. 8102, Pub.
L. 110-28, 121 Stat. 112; and sec. 1201, Div. S., Tit. XII, Pub. L.
115-141, 132 Stat. 348.
0
6. Revise Sec. 531.50 to read as follows:
Sec. 531.50 Statutory provisions with respect to tipped employees.
(a) With respect to tipped employees, section 3(m)(2)(A) provides
that, in determining the wage an employer is required to pay a tipped
employee, the amount paid such employee by the employee's employer
shall be an amount equal to--
(1) The cash wage paid such employee which for purposes of such
determination shall not be less than the cash wage required to be paid
such an employee on August 20, 1996 [i.e., $2.13]; and
(2) An additional amount on account of the tips received by such
employee which amount is equal to the difference between the wage
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and section 6(a)(1) of
the Act.
(b) Section 3(m)(2)(A) also provides that an employer that takes a
tip credit against its minimum wage obligations to its tipped employees
must inform those employees of the provisions of that subsection, and
that the employees must retain all of their tips, although the employer
may require those employees to participate in a tip pool with other
tipped employees that customarily and regularly receive tips.
(c) Section 3(m)(2)(B) provides that an employer may not keep tips
received by its employees for any purposes, including allowing managers
and supervisors to keep any portion of employees' tips, regardless of
whether the employer takes a tip credit under section 3(m)(2)(A).
(d) ``Tipped employee'' is defined in section 3(t) of the Act as
any employee engaged in an occupation in which he or she customarily
and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips.
0
7. Revise the first sentence of Sec. 531.51 to read as follows:
Sec. 531.51 Conditions for taking tip credits in making wage
payments.
The wage credit permitted on account of tips under section
3(m)(2)(A) may be taken only with respect to wage payments made under
the Act to those employees whose occupations in the workweeks for which
such payments are made are those of ``tipped employees'' as defined in
section 3(t). * * *
0
8. Revise Sec. 531.52 to read as follows:
Sec. 531.52 General restrictions on an employer's use of its
employees' tips.
(a) A tip is a sum presented by a customer as a gift or gratuity in
recognition of some service performed for the customer. It is to be
distinguished from payment of a charge, if any, made for the service.
Whether a tip is to be given, and its amount, are matters determined
solely by the customer. An employer that takes a tip credit against its
minimum wage obligations is prohibited from using an employee's tips
for any reason other than that which is statutorily permitted in
section 3(m)(2)(A): As a credit against its minimum wage obligations to
the employee, or in furtherance of a tip pool limited to employees who
customarily and regularly receive tips. Only tips actually received by
an employee as money belonging to the employee may be counted in
determining whether the person is a ``tipped employee'' within the
meaning of the Act and in applying the provisions of section 3(m)(2)(A)
which govern wage credits for tips.
(b) Section 3(m)(2)(B) of the Act provides that an employer may not
keep tips received by its employees for any purposes, regardless of
whether the employer takes a tip credit.
(1) An employer may exert control over an employee's tips only to
distribute tips to the employee who received them, require employees to
share tips with other employees in compliance with Sec. 531.54, or,
where the employer facilitates tip pooling by collecting and
redistributing employees' tips, distribute tips to employees in a tip
pool in compliance with Sec. 531.54.
(2) An employer may not allow managers and supervisors to keep any
portion of an employee's tips, regardless of whether the employer takes
a tip credit. A manager or supervisor may keep tips that he or she
receives directly from customers based on the service that he or she
directly provides. For purposes of section 3(m)(2)(B), the term
``manager'' or ``supervisor'' shall mean any employee whose duties
match those of an executive employee as described in Sec.
541.100(a)(2) through (4) or Sec. 541.101 of this chapter.
0
9. Revise Sec. 531.54 to read as follows:
Sec. 531.54 Tip pooling.
(a) Monies counted as tips. Where employees practice tip splitting,
as where waiters give a portion of their tips to the busser, both the
amounts retained by the waiters and those given the bussers are
considered tips of the individuals who retain them, in applying the
provisions of sections 3(m)(2)(A) and 3(t). Similarly, where an
accounting is made to an employer for his or her information only or in
furtherance of a pooling arrangement whereby the employer redistributes
the tips to the employees upon some basis to which they have mutually
agreed among themselves, the amounts received and retained by each
individual as his or her own are counted as his or her tips for
purposes of the Act. Section 3(m)(2)(A) does not impose a maximum
contribution percentage on mandatory tip pools.
(b) Prohibition against keeping tips--(1) Meaning of ``keep.''
Section 3(m)(2)(B)'s prohibition against keeping tips applies
regardless of whether an employer takes a tip credit. Section
3(m)(2)(B) expressly prohibits employers from requiring employees to
share tips with managers or supervisors, as defined in Sec.
531.52(b)(2), or employers, as defined in 29 U.S.C. 203(d). An employer
does not violate section 3(m)(2)(B)'s prohibition against keeping tips
if it requires employees to share tips with other employees who are
eligible to receive tips.
(2) Full and prompt distribution of tips. An employer that
facilitates tip pooling by collecting and redistributing employees'
tips does not violate section 3(m)(2)(B)'s prohibition against keeping
tips if it fully distributes any tips the employer collects no later
than the regular payday for the workweek in which the tips were
collected, or when the pay period covers more than a single workweek,
the regular payday for the period in which the workweek ends. To the
extent that it is not possible for an employer to ascertain the amount
of tips that have been received or how tips should be distributed prior
to processing payroll, tips must be distributed to employees as soon as
practicable after the regular payday.
(c) Employers that take a section 3(m)(2)(A) tip credit. When an
employer
[[Page 86790]]
takes a tip credit pursuant to section 3(m)(2)(A):
(1) The employer may require an employee for whom the employer
takes a tip credit to contribute tips to a tip pool only if it is
limited to employees who customarily and regularly receive tips; and
(2) The employer must notify its employees of any required tip pool
contribution amount, may only take a tip credit for the amount of tips
each employee ultimately receives, and may not retain any of the
employees' tips for any other purpose.
(3) An employer may not participate in such a tip pool and may not
include managers and supervisors in the pool.
(d) Employers that do not take a section 3(m)(2)(A) tip credit. An
employer that pays its tipped employees the full minimum wage and does
not take a tip credit may impose a tip pooling arrangement that
includes dishwashers, cooks, or other employees in the establishment
who are not employed in an occupation in which employees customarily
and regularly receive tips. An employer may not participate in such a
tip pool and may not include supervisors and managers in the pool.
0
10. Revise Sec. 531.55(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 531.55 Examples of amounts not received as tips.
(a) A compulsory charge for service, such as 15 percent of the
amount of the bill, imposed on a customer by an employer's
establishment, is not a tip and, even if distributed by the employer to
its employees, cannot be counted as a tip received in applying the
provisions of sections 3(m)(2)(A) and 3(t). Similarly, where
negotiations between a hotel and a customer for banquet facilities
include amounts for distribution to employees of the hotel, the amounts
so distributed are not counted as tips received.
* * * * *
0
11. Amend Sec. 531.56 by revising the second and third sentences in
paragraph (a) and paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 531.56 ``More than $30 a month in tips.''
(a) * * * An employee employed in an occupation in which the tips
he or she receives meet the minimum standard in the preceding sentence
is a ``tipped employee'' for whom the wage credit provided by section
3(m)(2)(A) may be taken in computing the compensation due him or her
under the Act for employment in such occupation, whether he or she is
employed in it full time or part time. An employee employed full time
or part time in an occupation in which he or she does not receive more
than $30 a month in tips customarily and regularly is not a ``tipped
employee'' within the meaning of the Act and must receive the full
compensation required by the provisions of the Act in cash or allowable
facilities without any deduction for tips received under the provisions
of section 3(m)(2)(A).
* * * * *
(c) Individual tip receipts are controlling. An employee must him-
or herself customarily and regularly receive more than $30 a month in
tips in order to qualify as a tipped employee. The fact that he or she
is part of a group which has a record of receiving more than $30 a
month in tips will not qualify him or her. For example, a server who is
newly hired will not be considered a tipped employee merely because the
other servers in the establishment receive tips in the requisite
amount. For the method of applying the test in initial and terminal
months of employment, see Sec. 531.58.
(d) Significance of minimum monthly tip receipts. More than $30 a
month in tips customarily and regularly received by the employee is a
minimum standard that must be met before any wage credit for tips is
determined under section 3(m)(2)(A). It does not govern or limit the
determination of the appropriate amount of wage credit under section
3(m)(2)(A) that may be taken for tips under section 6(a)(1) (tip credit
equals the difference between the minimum wage required by section
6(a)(1) and the cash wage paid (at least $2.13 per hour)).
(e) Dual jobs. (1) In some situations an employee is employed in a
dual job, as for example, where a maintenance person in a hotel also
works as a server. In such a situation the employee, if he or she
customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips for
his or her work as a server, is a tipped employee only with respect to
his or her employment as a server. The employee is employed in two
occupations, and no tip credit can be taken for his or her hours of
employment in the occupation of maintenance person.
(2) Such a situation is distinguishable from that of an employee
who spends time performing duties that are related to his or her tip-
producing occupation but are not themselves directed toward producing
tips. For example, a server may spend part of his or her time cleaning
and setting tables, toasting bread, making coffee and occasionally
washing dishes or glasses. Likewise, a counter attendant may also
prepare his or her own short orders or may, as part of a group of
counter attendants, take a turn as a short order cook for the group. An
employer may take a tip credit for any hours that an employee performs
related, non-tipped duties contemporaneously with his or her tipped
duties, or for a reasonable time immediately before or after performing
the tipped duties.
(3) In addition to the examples described in paragraph (e)(2) of
this section, a non-tipped duty is presumed to be related to a tip-
producing occupation if the duty is listed as a task in the description
of the tip-producing occupation in the Occupational Information Network
(O*NET) at www.onetonline.org. Occupations not listed in O*NET may also
qualify as tipped occupations. For those occupations, duties usually
and customarily performed by employees are presumed to be related
duties as long as they are included in the list of duties performed in
similar O*NET occupations.
0
12. Revise Sec. 531.59 to read as follows:
Sec. 531.59 The tip wage credit.
(a) In determining compliance with the wage payment requirements of
the Act, under the provisions of section 3(m)(2)(A) the amount paid to
a tipped employee by an employer is increased on account of tips by an
amount equal to the formula set forth in the statute (minimum wage
required by section 6(a)(1) of the Act minus cash wage paid (at least
$2.13)), provided that the employer satisfies all the requirements of
section 3(m)(2)(A). This tip credit is in addition to any credit for
board, lodging, or other facilities which may be allowable under
section 3(m).
(b) As indicated in Sec. 531.51, the tip credit may be taken only
for hours worked by the employee in an occupation in which the employee
qualifies as a ``tipped employee.'' Pursuant to section 3(m)(2)(A), an
employer is not eligible to take the tip credit unless it has informed
its tipped employees in advance of the employer's use of the tip credit
of the provisions of section 3(m)(2)(A) of the Act, i.e.: The amount of
the cash wage that is to be paid to the tipped employee by the
employer; the additional amount by which the wages of the tipped
employee are increased on account of the tip credit claimed by the
employer, which amount may not exceed the value of the tips actually
received by the employee; that all tips received by the tipped employee
must be retained by the employee except for a tip pooling arrangement
limited to employees who
[[Page 86791]]
customarily and regularly receive tips; and that the tip credit shall
not apply to any employee who has not been informed of the requirements
in this section. The credit allowed on account of tips may be less than
that permitted by statute (minimum wage required by section 6(a)(1)
minus the cash wage paid (at least $2.13)); it cannot be more. In order
for the employer to claim the maximum tip credit, the employer must
demonstrate that the employee received at least that amount in actual
tips. If the employee received less than the maximum tip credit amount
in tips, the employer is required to pay the balance so that the
employee receives at least the minimum wage with the defined
combination of wages and tips. With the exception of tips contributed
to a tip pool limited to employees who customarily and regularly
receive tips as described in Sec. 531.54, section 3(m)(2)(A) also
requires employers that take a tip credit to permit employees to retain
all tips received by the employee.
0
13. Revise Sec. 531.60 to read as follows:
Sec. 531.60 Overtime payments.
When overtime is worked by a tipped employee who is subject to the
overtime pay provisions of the Act, the employee's regular rate of pay
is determined by dividing the employee's total remuneration for
employment (except statutory exclusions) in any workweek by the total
number of hours actually worked by the employee in that workweek for
which such compensation was paid. (See part 778 of this chapter for a
detailed discussion of overtime compensation under the Act.) In
accordance with section 3(m)(2)(A), a tipped employee's regular rate of
pay includes the amount of tip credit taken by the employer per hour
(not in excess of the minimum wage required by section 6(a)(1) minus
the cash wage paid (at least $2.13)), the reasonable cost or fair value
of any facilities furnished to the employee by the employer, as
authorized under section 3(m) and this part, and the cash wages
including commissions and certain bonuses paid by the employer. Any
tips received by the employee in excess of the tip credit need not be
included in the regular rate. Such tips are not payments made by the
employer to the employee as remuneration for employment within the
meaning of the Act.
PART 578--TIP RETENTION, MINIMUM WAGE, AND OVERTIME VIOLATIONS--
CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES
0
14. The authority citation for part 578 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 216(e), as amended by sec. 9, Pub. L. 101-
157, 103 Stat. 938, sec. 3103, Pub. L. 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388-29,
sec. 302(a), Pub. L. 110-233, 122 Stat. 920, and sec. 1201, Div. S.,
Tit. XII, Pub. L. 115-141, 132 Stat. 348; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat.
890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note), as amended by sec. 31001(s), Pub. L. 104-
134, 110 Stat. 1321-358, 1321-373, and sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129
Stat 584.
0
15. The heading of part 578 is revised to read as set forth above.
0
16. Revise Sec. 578.1 to read as follows:
Sec. 578.1 What does this part cover?
Section 9 of the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1989 amended
section 16(e) of the Act to provide that any person who repeatedly or
willfully violates the minimum wage (section 6) or overtime provisions
(section 7) of the Act shall be subject to a civil money penalty not to
exceed $1,100 for each such violation. In 2001, the Wage and Hour
Division (WHD) adjusted this penalty for inflation pursuant to the
Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-
410), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub.
L. 104-134, section 31001(s)). The Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 amended section 16(e) of the Act to
reflect this increase. See Public aw. 110-233, sec. 302(a), 122 Stat.
920. Section 1201(b)(3) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018,
amended section 16(e) to add that any person who violates section
3(m)(2)(B) of the Act shall be subject to a civil money penalty not to
exceed $1,100. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of
1990 (Pub. L. 101-410), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement
Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134, section 31001(s)) and the Federal Civil
Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Pub. L.
114-74, section 701), requires that inflationary adjustments be
annually made in these civil money penalties according to a specified
cost-of-living formula. This part defines terms necessary for
administration of the civil money penalty provisions, describes the
violations for which a penalty may be imposed, and describes criteria
for determining the amount of penalty to be assessed. The procedural
requirements for assessing and contesting such penalties are contained
in part 580 of this chapter.
0
17. Revise Sec. 578.3 to read as follows:
Sec. 578.3 What types of violations may result in a penalty being
assessed?
(a) In general. (1) A penalty of up to $1,162 per violation may be
assessed against any person who repeatedly or willfully violates
section 3(m)(2)(B) of the Act.
(2) A penalty of up to $2,074 per violation may be assessed against
any person who repeatedly or willfully violates section 6 (minimum
wage) or section 7 (overtime) of the Act. The amount of the penalties
stated in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section will be determined
by applying the criteria in Sec. 578.4.
(b) Repeated violations. An employer's violation of section
3(m)(2)(B), section 6, or section 7 of the Act shall be deemed to be
``repeated'' for purposes of this section:
(1) Where the employer has previously violated section 3(m)(2)(B),
section 6, or section 7 of the Act, provided the employer has
previously received notice, through a responsible official of the Wage
and Hour Division or otherwise authoritatively, that the employer
allegedly was in violation of the provisions of the Act; or
(2) Where a court or other tribunal has made a finding that an
employer has previously violated section 3(m)(2)(B), section 6, or
section 7 of the Act, unless an appeal therefrom which has been timely
filed is pending before a court or other tribunal with jurisdiction to
hear the appeal, or unless the finding has been set aside or reversed
by such appellate tribunal.
(c) Willful violations. (1) An employer's violation of section
3(m)(2)(B), section 6, or section 7 of the Act shall be deemed to be
``willful'' for purposes of this section where the employer knew that
its conduct was prohibited by the Act or showed reckless disregard for
the requirements of the Act. All of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the violation shall be taken into account in determining
whether a violation was willful.
(2) For purposes of this section, the employer's receipt of advice
from a responsible official of the Wage and Hour Division to the effect
that the conduct in question is not lawful can be sufficient to show
that the employer's conduct is knowing, but is not automatically
dispositive.
0
18. Revise Sec. 578.4(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 578.4 Determination of penalty.
(a) In determining the amount of penalty to be assessed for any
repeated or willful violation of section 3(m)(2)(B), section 6, or
section 7 of the Act, the Administrator shall consider the seriousness
of the violations and the size of the employer's business.
* * * * *
[[Page 86792]]
PART 579--CHILD LABOR VIOLATIONS--CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES
0
19. The authority citation for part 579 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 203(m), (l), 211, 212, 213(c), 216; Reorg.
Plan No. 6 of 1950, 64 Stat. 1263, 5 U.S.C. App; secs. 25, 29, 88
Stat. 72, 76; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 01-2014 (Dec. 19,
2014), 79 FR 77527 (Dec. 24, 2014); 28 U.S.C. 2461 Note.
0
20. Amend Sec. 579.1 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (a)(2) as paragraph (a)(2)(i); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (a)(2)(ii).
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 579.1 Purpose and scope.
(a) Section 16(e), added to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(FLSA), as amended, by the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1974, and
as further amended by the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1989, the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, the Compactor and Balers
Safety Standards Modernization Act of 1996, the Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act
of 2018, provides for the imposition of civil money penalties in the
following manner:
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Any person who repeatedly or willfully violates section
203(m)(2)(B) of the FLSA, relating to the retention of tips, shall be
subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $1,162 for each such
violation.
* * * * *
0
21. Amend Sec. 579.2 by revising the definition of ``Willful
violations'' to read as follows:
Sec. 579.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Willful violations under this section has several components. An
employer's violation of section 12 or section 13(c) of the Act relating
to child labor or any regulation issued pursuant to such sections,
shall be deemed to be willful for purposes of this section where the
employer knew that its conduct was prohibited by the Act or showed
reckless disregard for the requirements of the Act. All of the facts
and circumstances surrounding the violation shall be taken into account
in determining whether a violation was willful. In addition, for
purposes of this section, the employer's receipt of advice from a
responsible official of the Wage and Hour Division to the effect that
the conduct in question is not lawful can be sufficient to show that
the employer's conduct is knowing, but is not automatically
dispositive.
PART 580--CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES--PROCEDURES FOR ASSESSING AND
CONTESTING PENALTIES
0
22. The authority citation for part 580 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 9a, 203, 209, 211, 212, 213(c), 216; Reorg.
Plan No. 6 of 1950, 64 Stat. 1263, 5 U.S.C. App; secs. 25, 29, 88
Stat. 72, 76; Secretary's Order 01-2014 (Dec. 19, 2014), 79 FR 77527
(Dec. 24, 2014); 5 U.S.C. 500, 503, 551, 559; 103 Stat. 938.
0
23. Revise the first sentence of Sec. 580.2 to read as follows:
Sec. 580.2 Applicability of procedures and rules.
The procedures and rules contained in this part prescribe the
administrative process for assessment of civil money penalties for any
violation of the child labor provisions at section 12 of the Act and
any regulation thereunder as set forth in part 579 of this chapter, and
for assessment of civil money penalties for any repeated or willful
violation of the tip retention provisions of section 3(m)(2)(B), the
minimum wage provisions of section 6, or the overtime provisions of
section 7 of the Act or the regulations thereunder set forth in 29 CFR
subtitle B, chapter V. * * *
0
24. Revise the first sentence of Sec. 580.3 to read as follows:
Sec. 580.3 Written notice of determination required.
Whenever the Administrator determines that there has been a
violation by any person of section 12 of the Act relating to child
labor or any regulation thereunder as set forth in part 579 of this
chapter, or determines that there has been a repeated or willful
violation by any person of section 3(m)(2)(B), section 6, or section 7
of the Act, and determines that imposition of a civil money penalty for
such violation is appropriate, the Administrator shall issue and serve
a notice of such penalty on such person in person or by certified mail.
* * *
0
25. Amend Sec. 580.12 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (b)
of to read as follows:
Sec. 580.12 Decision and Order of Administrative Law Judge.
* * * * *
(b) The decision of the Administrative Law Judge shall be limited
to a determination of whether the respondent has committed a violation
of section 12, or a repeated or willful violation of section
3(m)(2)(B), section 6, or section 7 of the Act, and the appropriateness
of the penalty assessed by the Administrator. * * *
* * * * *
0
26. Amend Sec. 580.18 by revising the third sentence in paragraph
(b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 580.18 Collection and recovery of penalty.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * * A willful violation of sections 3(m)(2)(B), 6, 7, or 12
of the Act may subject the offender to the penalties provided in
section 16(a) of the Act, enforced by the Department of Justice in
criminal proceedings in the United States courts. * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-28555 Filed 12-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-27-P