From http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/breaki ... urt-31315/
The DOL denied Plaintiff’s Petition for the following stated reasons: (1) the regulations were valid because they served a remedial purpose, were time-tested and subject to judicial scrutiny…; and (2) the only act of “service” was handing the food to the customer at the customer’s door and so delivery drivers’ duties were not solely serving food as required under Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies § 31-62-E2(c). The DOL’s decision was that only employers of “service employees” as defined by the DOL could utilize the credit, and Plaintiff’s employees were not service employees.
Gonna be interesting to see how this plays out...
Oh.. no.. this is to the good. Its the further in the article that is important...
The Court’s decision traced the origin of the tip credit in a portion of the decision that only lawyers will love. But then they get to the heart of the matter: “It was reasonable for the department to conclude that the legislature did not intend that employees such as delivery drivers, who have the potential to earn gratuities during only a small portion of their workday, would be subject to a reduction in their minimum wage with respect to time spent traveling to a customer’s home and other duties for which they do not earn gratuities.”
Effectively I read this to mean that the time spent driving will not be included in the "tip earning" calculation of split pay. Remember that if the employee spends more than 20% of their time in non tip earning duties then the employee must be paid the applicable minimum wage.
This is a GOOD THING!!
But, as always there is also an issue detrimental to tip credit employees... the tip pooling case that is before the US Supreme court.