Louie Hung Kwei Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Inc.

Labor Code section 351 prohibits employers from taking any gratuity patrons leave for their employees, and declares that such gratuity is “the sole property of the employee or employees to whom it was paid, given, or left for.” A number of Courts of Appeal have held that this prohibition, at least in the restaurant context, does not extend to employer-mandated tip pooling, whereby employees must pool and share their tips with other employees. (See Leighton v. Old Heidelberg, Ltd. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1062, 1067 [ 268 Cal.Rptr. 647 ] (Leighton); see also Etheridge v. Reins Internat. California, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 908, 921-922 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 816 ]; Budrow v. Dave & Buster’s of California, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 875, 878-884 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 239 ]; Jameson v. Five Feet Restaurant, Inc. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 138, 143 [ 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 771 ].)

In this case, a card dealer brought a class action against his casino employer based on its mandatory tip pooling policy. The casino’s policy required dealers to contribute 15 to 20 percent of their tips to a tip pool to be shared among other designated employees who provided service to casino patrons. The dealer…