Etheridge v. Reins International California, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
KLEIN, P. J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in part 1. of the majority opinion, allowing plaintiff and appellant Brad Etheridge (Etheridge) to pursue the instant appeal. I otherwise dissent.
It is my view that employees who do not render direct table service may not share in the proceeds of an employer-mandated tip pool. I would hold Etheridge properly pled a cause of action against the employer for its mandatory tip-pooling policy which required him to share tips with employees who “do not provide direct table service and are back of the house employees.” Because the complaint is well…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIVCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Industrial Welfare Commission v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- Biljac Associates v. First Interstate Bank of OregonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- Henning v. Industrial Welfare CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.