Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—Conn. App.: Connecticut appellate court denies relief for restaurant servers in tip credit case, (Jul 11, 2025)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

The trial court properly determined that the requirements set forth in the regulations are directory and do not give rise to a private cause of action.

Restaurant servers sued their employer, claiming that the restaurant failed to record on a weekly basis the amount claimed as a tip credit for each server as a separate item in the wage record. The employer’s motion for summary judgment was granted by the trial court, after the employer argued that the applicable regulation was directory rather than mandatory and therefore the regulation did not create a private cause of action. On appeal, a Connecticut appeals court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly determined that the requirements set forth in the regulations are directory and do not give rise to a private cause of action (Anderson v. Reel Hospitality, LLC, No. AC 47799 (Conn. App. July 8, 2025)).

Tip credits. The plaintiffs worked as servers at a restaurant owned and operated by the defendant and claimed that the employer failed to record on a weekly basis the amount claimed as a tip credit for each server as a separate item in the wage record. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that they and other servers performed significant amounts of nonservice duties without the possibility for earning tips for such work and were not paid the minimum wage rate for this nonservice work.

Putative class action. The plaintiffs filed suit in the Superior Court of Connecticut, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and alleged violations of state minimum wage regulations, and then filed a motion for summary judgment. The employer filed its own motion for summary judgment, ultimately granted by the trial court, arguing that the applicable regulation is directory rather than mandatory and therefore the regulation does not create a private cause of action. The plaintiffs appealed to the Connecticut Court of Appeals, claiming that the trial court improperly determined, as a matter of law, that a violation of the recordkeeping requirements and regulations does not give rise to a private cause of action.

Private cause of action? The appellate court reviewed whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the employer, addressing the plaintiffs’ claim that the court improperly concluded, as a matter of law, that a violation of the regulation did not give rise to a private cause of action. The court agreed with the defendants that resolution of the appeal was controlled by its decision in Nettleton v. C & L Diners, LLC, in which it concluded that there was no right to a private cause of action under the applicable regulations.

“Similar to the present case, the plaintiff in Nettleton, who worked as a server at a restaurant operated by the defendant employer, brought an action based on violations of, inter alia, the recordkeeping requirements,” the appellate court noted. “Indeed, that conclusion does not contain any qualifying language indicating that it was limited to the particular circumstances of that case.” The court concluded that the trial court properly determined that the requirements set forth in the regulations thus are directory and do not give rise to a private cause of action.

The case is No. AC 47799.

Judge: Seeley, H.

Attorneys: Richard E. Hayber (Hayber, McKenna & Dinsmore) for Thomas T. Anderson. Allison P. Dearington (Jackson Lewis) for Reel Hospitality, LLC.

Companies: Reel Hospitality, LLC

Cases: WageHour ClassActions MinimumWage StateLawClaims ConnecticutNews