© 2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Massachusetts Wage & Hour Peculiarities, 2025 ed. | 105 the course of work. Such occupations include hairdressers, taxicab drivers, baggage handlers, and bellhops.605 C. “No Tipping” Policies The Tip Statute is silent as to whether employers may adopt “no tipping” policies to reduce the administrative burden of accounting for and distributing tips. The SJC, however, has held that such policies are lawful.606 In Meshna v. Scrivanos, the SJC found that there is nothing in the language of the Tip Statute that prohibits employers from implementing no tipping policies.607 Rather, the Tip Statute governs what employers can do with tips actually received.608 If employers choose to implement no tipping policies, the policy must be “clearly communicated” to customers.609 Such policies can be clearly communicated through signs or through instructing employees to communicate the existence of the policy to customers.610 If customers nonetheless leave tips even after being made aware of a no tipping policy, the Tip Statute does not require an employer to distribute those tips to wait staff employees.611 D. Mandatory Pooling of Tips and Service Charges The Tip Statute explicitly allows compulsory tip-pooling, stating: “An employer may administer a valid tip pool and may keep a record of the amounts received for bookkeeping or tax reporting purposes.”612 Thus, employers may require tip-pooling among a group of employees or mandate that employees share tips with other eligible employees.613 At least one court has interpreted the 605 Massachusetts Attorney General Advisory 2004/3. 606 Meshna v. Scrivanos, 471 Mass. 169 (2015). 607 Id. at 175-76. 608 Id. 609 Id. at 177 (finding that an employer will violate the Tip Statute if it retains tips given in contravention of no tipping policy if policy is not clearly communicated to customers). 610 Id. at 178 n.10. 611 Id. at 178 (finding that any money that is left in contravention of a no tipping policy is not “given to” wait staff employees). 612 M.G.L. ch. 149, § 152A(c). 613 The Tip Statute requires that tips and service charges be distributed among wait staff employees, service employees, or service bartenders “in proportion to the service provided by those employees.” M.G.L. ch. 149, § 152A(d) (emphasis added). The Statute, however, does not define “in proportion,” nor does it describe how an employer must determine proportionate shares. Two courts have interpreted the proportionality requirement and held that an “estimate” of proportionality satisfies the Tip Statute. Belghiti v. Select Rest., Inc., Civ. No. 10-12049-GAO, 2014 WL 1281476, *3 (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 2014), reconsideration denied, 2014 WL 5846303 (D. Mass. Nov. 12, 2014) (rejecting employee’s argument that proportion of tips should be based on actual performance each shift and holding employer’s estimate system, under which servers who provided a higher level of direct customer service received a full share while employees who worked in a more limited service role received a smaller share, was lawful); Williamson, 2004 WL 1050582, at *11-12 (construing the pre-2004 Tip Statute and finding employer’s practice of using a “level rating system,” under which each employee’s performance, seniority, and availability was considered, was lawful).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4