Lu

Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Inc.

Good Law
170 Cal. App. 4th 466·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 69·88 Cal. Rptr. 3d 345
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 22, 2009B194209California8,036 words

Opinion

Opinion

In Leighton v. Old Heidelberg, Ltd. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1062 [ 268 Cal.Rptr. 647 ] ( Leighton ) this District Court of Appeal held that tip pooling in restaurants is not prohibited by Labor Code section 351, a statute precluding employers from obtaining access to employees' tips and gratuities. Plaintiff, a former casino dealer on behalf of a class of dealers, challenges the legality of a casino's policy requiring dealers to contribute part of the gratuities they receive to a tip pool for employees who provide service to casino patrons. No California case addresses tip pooling in casinos. Distinguishing Leighton , plaintiff argues that unlike restaurants where tips are left on the tables, in casinos gratuities are handed directly to dealers, with the result that such gratuities belong solely to the dealers. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings ruling that Labor Code sections 351 and 450 do not provide for a private cause of action. The court then granted the casino's summary judgment motions and dismissed plaintiff's causes of action under Labor Code sections 221, 1197, 2802, and the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 (the UCL)) on the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.