Royal

Court Rules Worcester Club Violated Massachusetts Tip Act

October 10, 2022

On September 30, 2022 the United States District Court, D. Massachusetts held in favor of exotic dancers in the matter of Saad v. JOLO, Inc. by applying minimum wage law and the Massachusetts Tips Act. 


An employer may pay direct wages at the Service Rate (a rate substantially lower than minimum wage) provided that: (i) the employer provides the employees with required statutory notice; (ii) the employee actually receives tips in an amount which, when added to the Service Rate, equals or exceeds the full Massachusetts Minimum Wage; and (iii) all tips received by the employee are retained by the employee receiving the tips.


JOLO, Inc. specifically violated the Massachusetts Tip Act due to unlawful tip sharing as: (i) a portion of the tips received by exotic dancers were given to DJs and security guards (which included a manager) and (ii) a portion of the tips exotic dancers received was paid directly to their employer. 

The Court cited: Matamoros v. Starbucks Corp. which held that shift supervisors are not “wait staff” and therefore are ineligible to share in tips pools with baristas; and Cormier v. Landry's Seafood House-N. Carolina, Inc. which held that seater hosts are neither wait staff employees nor service employees under the Tips Act, and are also ineligible to participate in the tip pool with wait staff.



Additionally, since JOLO, Inc. retained a portion or “split” of the tips the exotic dancers received from customers for private/non-private dances it failed to comply with the Service Rate requirements which necessarily constituted a violation of the minimum wage law because they were ineligible for the tip credit.


If you have questions about this topic, or any other general employment issues, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.
February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: