BoberLaw Blog

Posts Tagged ‘poker dealer’

Poker Dealer Lawsuit Against Sarasota Kennel Club: Tip Pool Violations Alleged

Thursday, May 20th, 2010

A poker dealer from the Sarasota Kennel Club has filed a case seeking to bring a class action against the Sarasota Kennel Club, which operates a poker room called the One-Eye Jack’s Poker Room. The case claims the Sarasota Kennel Club failed to properly pay minimum wages to its poker dealers, as required by law.  The Sarasota Kennel Club takes a “tip credit” in the amount of $3.02 from the hourly minimum wages paid to its poker dealers.  The lawsuit alleges that Sarasota Kennel Club had a policy or practice of requiring its poker dealers to “tip out” or share their tips with the management employees, tournament directors, and/or cashiers, as part of a “tip pooling” arrangement.  The case alleges that because poker dealers were required to share tips with persons who were not “tipped employees,” as defined by law, the Sarasota Kennel Club was not permitted to deduct $3.02 from the wages paid to poker dealers for each hour worked.  The alleged class action lawsuit seeks to recover from the Sarasota Kennel Club $3.02 for each hour worked by each poker dealer who was part of the alleged invalid tip pool, liquidated damages, fees, and costs.  The case has been brought pursuant to Florida’s minimum wage law, the Florida Constitution, Article X, §24.  The court has not taken any position on this case.

Bober & Bober, P.A. is litigating this case on a contingency fee basis, which means Bober & Bober, P.A. gets paid a fee only if the poker dealers recover money from the Sarasota Kennel Club.  If you are concerned about being involved in this case, please be aware that the law prohibits employers from retaliating against individuals seeking their unpaid wages.  If you have information that would assist us in the investigation of these claims, please contact us. For more information about the Sarasota Kennel Club lawsuit, contact Bober & Bober, P.A. toll free at 800-995-WAGE (9243), or visit our contact page at wageclinic.com.

Many Landscaping Companies Violate Wage Laws

Tuesday, July 28th, 2009

Some landscaping companies try to avoid overtime pay by paying their workers a piece rate for removing landscaping, but fail to pay their workers overtime when they exceed for 40 hours in a week. For example, one landscaping company was required to pay $52,240 in back wages and penalties following a determination by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division that company violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) buy using such a piece rate pay system.  An employer may determine earnings on a piece rate basis, a salary basis, by commission, or by some other basis. The overtime pay due, however, must be calculated on the basis of the average hourly rate derived from such earnings. Another mistake some landscaping companies make is they pay their employees from two different companies for the same work, or paying their employees from one company for work performed during the workweek, and from a different company for work performed on the weekend.  Other landscaping companies ask their employees to “volunteer” to work on weekends and then try claim they are independent contractors.  If your employer is engaging in this conduct, you should contact a wage and hour attorney to see what overtime or other wages you may be owed.

Immigrant Wage Theft

Saturday, July 25th, 2009

All covered employees, whether working legally or illegally, and regardless of his or her immigration status, are entitled to be paid the minimum wage and overtime.  Wage theft from undocumented workers is common, especially in workplaces such as construction sites, nail salons, and restaurants that are largely staffed by immigrant workers.

The Fair Labor Standards Act prohibits employers from retaliating against their employees for asserting their right to their wages. Threats to turn over employees to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) because that employee has exercised his or her rights, or other forms of intimidation, will be considered retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s anti-retaliation provisions.  Moreover, according to ICE’s Special Agents Field Manual, immigration officials must consider whether the information is being provided to interfere with or retaliate against employees seeking to assert their workplace rights.  If immigration authorities determine that information has been provided to interfere with the employee’s rights or to retaliate against the employee for exercising his rights, immigration authorities are not suppose to take action without review of District Counsel and approval by the Assistant Director for Investigations or an Assistant Chief Patrol.