The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] on Tuesday overturned [opinion, PDF] a district court judge’s dismissal of a lawsuit filed by server and bartender employees alleging they were paid “tipped” wages for performing non-tipped duties in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) [materials].

Under the “dual jobs” provision of the FLSA, employers are permitted to pay tipped-wages to employees performing both tipped and non-tipped tasks. The lawsuit charges the employers for violating that provision, saying that:

[E]mployers abused the tip credit provision by paying them a reduced tip credit wage and treating them as tipped employees when they were engaged in either (1) non-tipped tasks unrelated to serving and bartending, such as cleaning toilets; or (2) non-incidental tasks related to serving or bartending, such as hours spent cleaning and maintaining soft drink dispensers in excess of 20% of the workweek.

Based on the district court’s reading of the dual jobs provision, it dismissed the lawsuit, saying that the employees were fairly paid in accordance with the FLSA. The Department of Labor (DOL), however, had previously ruled that the provision permitted such wage allocation, so long as the cumulative amount equals at least minimum wage, and so long as the non-tipped activities do not exceed 20 percent of the employees time throughout the workweek.

The appeals court overruled the district court’s decision, saying that the plaintiffs did state a viable claim in accordance with the DOL’s interpretation and explanation of the “dual jobs” provision. Further, the district court should have considered the DOL’s rule when determining whether the plaintiffs could proceed. The case is now being sent back down to the district court to allow the plaintiffs to continue their case against the employers.

Wage and labor reform continue to press legislatures and courts around the nation. In August public-sector union employees in Missouri filed a lawsuit [text, PDF] challenging Missouri’s “paycheck protection” law [text, PDF], arguing it violates [JURIST report] the state’s constitutional protections to free speech, association and petition, as well as equal protection, protection against impairment of contracts, and the right to organize and bargain collectively. In April three detained immigrants filed [JURIST report] a class action lawsuit in the US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia [official website], accusing [complaint, PDF] CoreCivil [corporate website], one of the country’s largest private prison contractors, of “maintain[ing] a deprivation scheme intended to force detained immigrants to work for nearly free” in order to maximize its profits, in violation of federal labor law and common law equity principles.