Breaking Down the Trickier Aspects of Massachusetts Laws

July 26, 2021

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

Some Tips on Tips

Breaking Down the Trickier Aspects of Massachusetts Laws

By Ludwell Chase and Amy B. Royal, Esq.

State and federal laws pertaining to minimum wage, tips, overtime, and employing minors are complicated. As a result, these are areas where mistakes are often made.


Employers, however, cannot afford these errors because the consequences of not complying with these laws can be very costly. In fact, in Massachusetts, there are mandatory treble (triple) damages for violations of wage-and-hour laws relating to minimum wage, tips, and overtime. This means that, if an employer is found in violation of state law, at a minimum, for every dollar an employer does not pay in accordance with wage-and-hour laws, that employer will have to pay three times that amount.


Under Massachusetts and federal law, employers are allowed to pay employees who receive tips an hourly wage that is lower than the minimum wage. This works by allowing employers to take a ‘tip credit’ for a certain amount in tips that the employee earns. The employee must not make less than minimum wage when their tips and hourly wage are combined. Under the federal law, the Federal Labor Standards Act, all hourly workers must be paid the federal minimum wage of $7.25. Tipped workers may be directly paid $2.13 per hour if their tips and hourly wage combined are at least equal to the minimum wage. In other words, employers can claim a ‘tip credit’ of $5.12 per hour.


The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently released new proposed regulations for tipped workers that reinstate the 80/20 rule. This rule limits the amount of time tipped workers can spend performing activities that are related to tip-generating duties, while their employers can still claim the tip credit. Tipped workers must spend at least 80% of their time performing directly tip-generating activities, such as serving customers, and no more than 20% of their time performing not directly tip-generating activities, such as setting tables. This rule was previously in effect but was replaced by DOL guidance in 2018.


The 2018 guidance provided that employers could claim the tip credit if non-tipped duties were performed at the same time as tipped duties, or if the non-tipped duties were performed for a reasonable time before or after tipped duties. This new proposal returns to the 80/20 rule. In addition, the new proposal specifies that, if an employee performs non-tipped activities for 30 minutes in a row, the employer cannot pay the employee the lower tipped hourly wage for that time.


For employers with tipped workers that are subject to federal wage-and-hour law, this proposal is a good reminder that they need to pay attention to these potential changes and their effects on how they compensate employees.


Caution on the Menu

Massachusetts has its own complex laws relating to tips, minimum wage, and overtime. As a result, these are areas where it is easy for employers to make mistakes. Therefore, employers need to pay special attention to ensure they are complying with both state and federal laws. As of Jan. 1, 2021, the minimum wage in Massachusetts is $13.50 per hour. Massachusetts is incrementally increasing the minimum wage in order to reach a $15 minimum wage by 2023. For now, employers may pay workers who make at least $20 a month in tips a tipped hourly wage of $5.55 and take a tip credit of up to $7.95 per hour, for a combined minimum wage of $13.50.


The Massachusetts Tip Law mandates that all tips must be given to employees whose work directly generates tips, and that employers and managers may not keep any portion of their employees’ tips. The law applies to three categories of employees: waitstaff employees, service bartenders, and service employees. Waitstaff employees include waiters, waitresses, busboys, and counter staff who serve beverages or food directly to patrons or clear tables, and do not have any managerial responsibilities. Service bartenders prepare beverages to be served by another employee. Service employees include any other staff providing service directly to customers who customarily receive tips but have no managerial responsibilities. For the purposes of this law, managerial responsibilities are duties such as making or influencing employment decisions, scheduling shifts or work hours of employees, and supervising employees.


Massachusetts law allows for ‘tip-pooling’ arrangements. This means all or a portion of tips earned by waitstaff employees are pooled together and then distributed among those employees. Employers must be cautious when administering a tip pool and ensure that only waitstaff, service bartenders, and service employees are being paid from the pool. This means managers and back-of-house employees like cooks and dishwashers cannot share in tips. Even employees with limited managerial roles who also directly serve patrons are not considered waitstaff employees on days when they perform managerial duties.


When employees do not receive enough in tips to make up the difference between the tipped hourly wage and the minimum wage, employers must pay the difference. Employers are required to calculate tipped employees’ wages at the end of each shift, rather than at the end of the pay period. This requires employers to keep track of how much workers receive in tips for each shift. This may also require employers to pay their tipped employees additional amounts in order to compensate for slow shifts.


Under Massachusetts law, certain businesses, including restaurants, are exempt from paying employees overtime; however, they may not be exempt under federal law. If subject to federal law, employees working in restaurants must be paid one and one-half times the minimum wage (not one and one-half times $5.55 per hour) for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.


Under the Massachusetts Tip Law, if a restaurant includes a service charge, which serves as the functional equivalent of an automatic tip or gratuity, all the proceeds from that service charge must be paid only to waitstaff employees, service employees, or bartenders as a tip. Employers may, however, charge a ‘house fee’ or an ‘administrative fee,’ which they may use or distribute at their discretion, but only if it is clearly stated to customers that the fee is not a tip, gratuity, or service charge for tipped employees. Thus, any fees not intended as gratuities and not paid solely to tipped employees should not be labeled as a service charge.


Food for Thought

These complexities are especially important to Massachusetts employers, given that the consequences of failing to comply with wage-and-hour laws can be costly, and the penalty is the same regardless of whether the employer violated the law willfully or by mistake.


Considering the consequences of violations, businesses with tipped employees should regularly consult with their employment counsel to review their practices and policies to ensure compliance with state and federal law.


Ludwell Chase and Amy B. Royal work at the Royal Law Firm LLP, a woman-owned, boutique, corporate law firm; (413) 586-2288; aroyal@theroyallawfirm.com

This article was published in BusinessWest.

Starbucks Workers Sue Over Dress Code Expenses

September 25, 2025
Starbucks is facing a new wave of litigation, in this instance over its workplace dress code. Employees in California, Colorado, and Illinois allege that the Company’s updated policy forced them to purchase clothing items out-of-pocket without reimbursement, raising questions about employer obligations under state expense reimbursement laws. The Lawsuits On September 17, 2025, employees in Illinois and Colorado filed class-action lawsuits, while workers in California submitted complaints to the State’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency. If the Agency declines to act, those workers intend to pursue their own civil claims. The lawsuits are backed by the union organizing Starbucks workers, and plaintiffs argue that requiring employees to buy specific uniform items without full reimbursement violates the states’ statutes. Under laws in California, Colorado, and Illinois, employers must cover necessary business expenses, which can include uniforms or clothing mandated by a dress code. What the Dress Code Requires The revised policy, implemented in May 2025, requires employees to wear a solid black shirt (short or long sleeves, but not sleeveless or midriff-bearing) underneath their signature green apron. Pants must be khaki, black, or denim, and shoes must be in muted tones such as black, gray, navy, brown, tan, or white. The policy also forbids “theatrical makeup” and visible face tattoos, prohibits nail polish and tongue piercings, and limits workers to one (1) facial piercing. In an effort to offset the change, Starbucks provided two shirts free of charge to each employee. Workers contend this was not enough, since multiple additional items were required to comply with the policy. Court documents show that some employees who failed to follow the dress code were subject to verbal warnings or sent home before starting their shifts. Worker Claims One plaintiff, Shay Mannik, a shift supervisor in Colorado, reported purchasing four black T-shirts, compliant shoes, and jeans to meet the dress code requirements. Despite these costs, Mannik claims they were never reimbursed. “It’s unfair that a billion-dollar company puts this burden on workers already struggling with unpredictable hours and understaffed stores,” Mannik stated through attorneys. Starbucks’ Response Starbucks defended the policy as a way to “deliver a more consistent coffeehouse experience to our customers and provide our partners with simpler and clearer dress code guidance.” The Company emphasized that it issued two free shirts to employees to prepare for the change. Key Considerations for Employers The Starbucks litigation underscores several important lessons for businesses:  Uniform Policies May Trigger Reimbursement Duties. Even when employers provide some clothing, state laws may still require reimbursement if employees must make additional purchases. State Laws Differ. California, Colorado, and Illinois all impose expense reimbursement obligations, but requirements vary, and enforcement can be aggressive. Here in Massachusetts, an employer does not need to pay for or reimburse an employee for general clothing, such as khakis, a black shirt, and black shoes, since these are ordinary items that can be worn outside of work. If the employer requires a specific style, brand, or logo (making the clothing a true uniform) then the employer must provide or reimburse for it and cover the cost of maintenance if special cleaning is needed. The only exception for ordinary clothing is if the cost would reduce the employee’s pay below minimum wage. Policy Rollouts Should Weigh Legal Risks. Employers introducing or revising appearance standards should carefully evaluate potential compliance costs, both financial and reputational. Takeaway The lawsuits against Starbucks will test the boundaries of state reimbursement laws and may influence how courts interpret employer obligations regarding dress codes. For companies, this case highlights the need to review policies proactively and ensure expense reimbursement practices comply with applicable state requirements. At The Royal Law Firm, we advise businesses on preventive compliance and represent employers when disputes arise. Our team’s focus on business defense ensures that policies are both operationally effective and legally sound. The Royal Law Firm LLP is a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council. 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.

The Royal Law Firm Recognized with the Chambers Spotlight Award

September 24, 2025
The Royal Law Firm is proud to announce that we have been ranked in the inaugural Chambers Spotlight Massachusetts Guide, which is a prestigious recognition from the internationally renowned legal research company Chambers and Partners! We are honored to be recognized for our exceptional expertise in Labor & Employment law. This ranking reflects our unwavering commitment to delivering top-tier legal counsel to businesses throughout the Commonwealth and beyond. Only 2% of attorneys are ranked by Chambers. The Royal Law Firm is the only Labor & Employment firm ranked in Springfield, MA. This award highlights small and mid-sized firms with a proven record of excellence and partner-level attention to client matters. Chambers Spotlight is a new guide designed to showcase the very best boutique and mid-sized firms across key U.S. legal markets, focusing on firms that combine regional insight, national impact, and client-focused service. About The Royal Law Firm The Royal Law Firm is a New England-based, women-owned law firm that exclusively represents businesses. Our attorneys are known for their aggressive litigation strategy, proactive employment law counseling, and commitment to understanding every client’s unique business model and goals. We are proud to be certified as a Women-Owned Business through state and national organizations including WBENC, NAMWOLF, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office. The Royal Law Firm was founded by Amy Royal in 2008 with a mission to promote diversity in the legal field, serve businesses exclusively, and give back to her hometown community. As a seasoned trial lawyer with over 25 years of civil litigation experience representing companies, Amy specializes in employer-side employment law, business tort defense, labor law, and corporate transactions. She has successfully defended clients in individual and class action cases involving wage and hour issues, discrimination, harassment, FMLA, OSHA, ERISA, and more. Amy also advises on union matters, HR policies, workplace investigations, and affirmative action compliance. Her commercial litigation work spans business torts, unfair competition, and contract disputes, while her transactional practice includes drafting employment agreements, vendor contracts, and regulatory compliance strategies. Our recognition in the Chambers Spotlight Guide reflects the dedication and excellence of our entire team. Thank you to our clients, peers, and community for your continued trust and support. We look forward to continuing to serve you with excellence.