July 9, 2020

Volume X, Number 191

July 09, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 08, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 07, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 06, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Another Court Declines to Defer to DOL Guidance on 20 Percent Rule

The emerging trend of courts declining to defer to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)’s recent guidance on the so-called “20% rule” and the Dual Jobs regulation continues. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently joined the growing number of courts declining to afford Auer deference (or Skidmore deference) to the DOL’s recent interpretations.

In Belt, et al., v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., a potential class and collective of servers raised a dual jobs claim based on allegedly excessive time spent performing both untipped work related to their duties as servers (side work) and untipped work unrelated to their duties as servers.

The defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings. The defendant argued that the FLSA’s definition of “tipped employee” is unambiguous, and thus that the court did need not refer to DOL regulations at all. The court rejected the defendant’s argument, and afforded Chevron deference to the DOL’s Dual Jobs regulation.

Interestingly, the defendant did not argue in favor of Auer or Skidmore deference to the DOL’s current interpretation. Rather, “[b]oth parties agree[d] that the current DOL interpretation of the Dual Jobs regulation does not warrant deference.” According to the court, “it is obvious why: the current interpretation is unreasonable and does not reflect the DOL’s fair and considered judgment.” And despite the parties’ agreement, the court went on to independently determine that neither Auer deference nor Skidmore deference were warranted.

According to the court, the current DOL interpretation is unreasonable in part because it is internally inconsistent; it lacks clarity as to whether there is any limit on the amount of related untipped work an employee may be required to work. And the court explained that if there is no limit on untipped work, that interpretation would be inconsistent with the Dual Jobs regulation.

The court also explained its position that the current interpretation does not reflect the DOL’s fair and considered judgment, in part because “[a]s both parties recognize, the DOL’s current interpretation of the Dual Jobs regulation is an express reversal of its prior position, the 80/20 Rule.” According to the court, the DOL’s “recent abandonment of the 80/20 Rule is an ‘unfair surprise,’” and “fails to acknowledge the subsequent decade of case law consistently deferring to the 80/20 Rule, and the DOL’s consistent support of the 80/20 Rule in amicus briefs.”

Having rejected Auer deference, the court explained that “Skidmore deference to the DOL’s interpretation of the Dual Jobs regulation is unwarranted for many of the same reasons that Auer deference is inappropriate.”

The court’s decision in Belt continues an emerging trend of substantial importance to employers with tipped employees facing “20% rule” and “dual jobs” claims. This growing body of case law suggests that plaintiff employees may well have continued success resisting arguments based on the DOL’s recent interpretations of the Dual Jobs regulation.

© 2020 BARNES & THORNBURG LLPNational Law Review, Volume IX, Number 234


About this Author

Peter J. Wozniak Barnes Thornburg Chicago  Labor Employment

Pete Wozniak is a vigorous advocate who strives to help his clients navigate issues that can be fraught with challenges as painlessly and efficiently as possible. He is a candid and personable counselor, offering his clients direct advice by leveraging his deep experience performing a broad range of outcome critical functions for complex labor and employment matters.

Pete represents clients across a number of industries, including transportation and logistics, restaurants, retail, manufacturing, and temporary staffing. Handling a number of high profile matters, he identifies the...

Mark Wallin, Attorney, BT, Chicago, Labor Employment
Of Counsel

In order to provide the best counsel, Mark Wallin believes it is his role to understand his clients’ business needs so he can help them determine what resolution will provide the most benefit. His keen ability to understand his clients’ practical concerns allows him to advise on the best path to successfully resolve issues – whether through traditional litigation or negotiated resolution.

In the course of his practice, Mark has focused on providing the highest-level of service to his clients and building long-term relationships. Specifically, he defends employers in a wide range of employment matters including wage and hour class and collective actions, as well as complex, multi-plaintiff and single plaintiff employment discrimination claims brought not only by private plaintiffs but also initiated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Mark has successfully represented companies of virtually all sizes, litigating matters across multiple areas of the law, from the pleading stage through appeal. He has also represented clients in arbitrations and before administrative bodies.

Mark vigilantly stays abreast of cases, laws, and trends that may impact his clients coming out of the courts, Congress and the state legislature, as well as the U.S. Department of Labor, the EEOC, and state regulatory agencies. He strives to keep a watchful eye on how labor and employment related laws are evolving so as to proactively advise clients.

In addition to his regular legal practice, Mark has undertaken several pro bono cases including trying criminal jury trials in state and federal court, and representing indigent plaintiffs in civil rights matters as part of the federal Trial Bar.

Mark began honing his litigation skill during law school when he interned at the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Northern District of Illinois, where he handled both civil and criminal issues. He also interned for a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which gave him a unique vantage of seeing the issues from the court’s perspective.