The FLSA defines “employer” as “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee.” Id. § 203(d). Under the FLSA, two or more employers may employ a person jointly.

64 Id. 65 29 U.S.C. § 203(m). 66 See Vankar, 2008 WL 791963, at *2.

These QAs, just like the QAs who also work as Servers, are “server helpers” and in that capacity are “engaged in an occupation in which [they] customarily and regularly receive more than $30 a month in tips.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(t). E.g., Linville dep.

This also would run counter to the Supreme Court’s observation that it is unlikely Congress intended “to convert federal judges into time study professionals” through anything in 29 U.S.C. § 203(e). Sandifer, 134 S.Ct. at 881. The same also can be said of § 203(m). Indeed, the Crate decision, cited by the plaintiffs, exemplifies how unworkable such a system could be.

Without waiving this objection, Defendant admits that he employed Plaintiffs. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27 Please admit that in 2015 you were an “employer” of each Plaintiff within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). (Compare Pls.’

Plaintiffs at their depositions and in their declarations confirmed that no one at the Restaurant ever informed them that their tips Case 1:10-cv-05288-PAC Document 23 Filed 07/05/11 Page 28 of 31 24 would count towards the minimum wage.14 (Rule 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 60.) TYT Chairman Ni testified during his Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on behalf of TYT and Jin Hua that he did not know whether Jin Hua’s managers (or anyone else) ever told employees that the Restaurant was claiming the tip credit or informed them of the provisions of Section 203(m).

at 581. This is also consistent with the legislative history of the tip credit provisions of 29 U.S.C. §203(m). In particular, Senate Report No. 93-690, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess.

Plaintiff Thomas E. Perez, the United States Secretary of Labor, moved for summary judgment on the following issues: (1) Defendants violated and continue to violate 29 U.S.C. §§ 211 and 215(a)(5), the recordkeeping provisions of the FLSA; (2) Defendants violated and continue to violate 29 U.S.C. § 206 and 215(a)(2), the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA; (3) the Secretary is entitled to an immediate injunction under 29 U.S.C. § 217 prohibiting Defendants from Case 1:15-cv-03197-RMP Document 96-1 Filed 10/28/16 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SECRETARY’S MOT. FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 2 CASE NO. 1:15-cv-03197-RMP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 future violations of the FLSA’s recordkeeping and minimum wage provisions; (4) Defendant Sunshine Motel Inn, LLC is an FLSA-covered enterprise; (5) Defendant Rajiv Sauson is an individually-liable employer of Sunshine Motel’s employees under 29 U.S.C. § 203(d); and (6) Defendant Raj and Company, Inc. is a joint employer of Sunshine Motel’s employees. Having considered this matter based on the briefing and evidence before me and having heard the arguments of counsel, I find and order as follows: 1.

56(a). Second, the excerpt from the Field Operations Handbook is not enforceable because it has been only inconsistently applied by the DOL itself, and was never intended to be applied like a regulation.5 29 U.S.C. § 203(m) refers not to time spent by tipped employees on related                                                                                                                           5 Indeed, applying it with the force of a regulation would likely violate the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559.

A. Legal Standards for Liability Under the Fair Labor Standards Act The FLSA defines “employer” as “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interests of an employer in relation to an employee.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). This definition is “expansive,” not only in its plain language, but also in its application.