Barenboim v. Starbucks Corp.
In this dissenting opinion, Judge Smith argues that Labor Law § 196-d, which prohibits employers from demanding or accepting parts of employee gratuities, is inapplicable to disputes over how a common tip pool is shared among employees. The dissent contends that the statute's purpose is to prevent employers from retaining tips meant for employees, not to regulate the internal distribution of pooled tips. Drawing a distinction from federal law and referencing a similar California case, Jou Chau v Starbucks Corp., the judge concludes that extending the statute to tip pooling among employees unnecessarily complicates the law and creates avenues for excessive regulation and litigation, despite agreeing with the majority's outcome in favor of Starbucks.