Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—MINIMUM WAGE—S.D. Ohio: Casino server’s FLSA claims over non-tipped work largely survive dismissal motion, (Jul 10, 2026)

By Mandavi Singh, LL.M.

A casino server may continue pursuing claims that his employer improperly claimed the FLSA tip credit for excessive non-tipped work, although allegations based on the 30-minute rule were dismissed.

A casino server’s claims that his employer improperly paid tipped wages while requiring substantial non-tip-producing work largely survived a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Granting the employer’s motion in part and denying it in part, a federal district court in Ohio found that although the DOL’s 2021 30-minute rule no longer provides a basis for relief, the agency’s long-standing 80/20 Rule remains persuasive authority in the Sixth Circuit. As a result, the employee may continue pursuing FLSA and Ohio Constitution minimum wage claims based on allegations that he spent excessive time performing non-tipped duties while being paid the reduced tipped wage (Francis v. Hard Rock Cafe International (STP), Inc., No. 1:23-cv-760 (S.D. Ohio July 8, 2026)).

Minimum wage allegations. The employee, an Ohio resident, worked as a server at a casino restaurant beginning in January 2023. He filed a putative collective and class action alleging that the casino operator violated the FLSA and the Ohio Constitution’s minimum wage provisions.

According to the complaint, servers were required to report at least an hour before opening to perform duties such as stocking dishes and glasses, folding linens, setting tables, polishing silverware, stocking condiments, preparing bar supplies, and attending pre-shift meetings before customers arrived. Because no customers were present during that time, the employee alleged the work produced no tips, yet the employer still paid servers the reduced tipped wage by claiming the FLSA tip credit. He also alleged that the employer automatically deducted 30-minute meal periods even though servers routinely did not receive uninterrupted meal breaks.

The employer moved for partial judgment on the pleadings only as to the non-tipped duties theory, arguing that the claims depended on portions of the DOL’s 2021 tip-credit regulation that were vacated in Rest. L. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 120 F.4th 163 (5th Cir. 2024).

History of the tip credit. To resolve the dispute, the court reviewed the evolution of the FLSA's tip-credit regulations. The FLSA generally requires employers to pay covered employees the federal minimum wage but allows employers to satisfy part of that obligation by paying tipped employees a reduced cash wage while claiming a tip credit toward the statutory minimum. The court explained that the DOL’s 1967 “dual jobs” regulation distinguishes employees performing separate tipped and non-tipped occupations from employees who merely perform related duties within a tipped occupation. Under that framework, employers may continue taking the tip credit for employees who perform related supporting work, even if those duties do not themselves generate tips.

In 1988, however, the DOL interpreted that regulation through its Field Operations Handbook, adopting what became known as the 80/20 Rule, which provided that employers could not claim the tip credit when tipped employees spent more than 20 percent of their workweek performing general preparation or maintenance work. The DOL later incorporated the 80/20 Rule into its 2021 Final Rule, while also establishing a new 30-minute limit on directly supporting work.

80/20 Rule survives. The employer argued that once the Fifth Circuit vacated portions of the 2021 Final Rule in Rest. L. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, the employee’s non-tipped duties theory disappeared entirely. The court disagreed.

According to the court, vacating the 2021 amendments simply restored the regulation to the form that existed before December 2021. At that time, the 80/20 Rule already existed as the DOL’s longstanding interpretation of the dual jobs regulation, whereas the 30-minute rule had not yet been created. Thus, eliminating the 2021 amendments did not erase decades of administrative guidance supporting the 80/20 Rule.

The court acknowledged that the current version of 29 C.F.R. § 531.56 contains no express reference to the 80/20 Rule. But it emphasized that the regulation likewise contained no such reference before the 2021 amendments, yet the DOL consistently interpreted it through the Field Operations Handbook.

The court also rejected the employer’s argument that Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), required courts to disregard that guidance. While Loper Bright eliminated Chevron deference, the Supreme Court reaffirmed in the same decision that courts may continue to rely on longstanding agency interpretations under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), when those interpretations reflect agency experience and informed judgment. The court found that principle particularly applicable because the DOL had consistently relied on the 80/20 Rule since 1988.

The court further found its conclusion consistent with Sixth Circuit precedent and recognized the persuasive value of the DOL’s Field Operations Handbook. Quoting Stein v. HHGREGG, Inc., 873 F.3d 523 (6th Cir. 2017), the court noted that the Handbook has long been treated as persuasive because it reflects the DOL’s “longstanding position.”

30-minute rule eliminated. The court reached a different conclusion regarding the employee’s reliance on the 30-minute rule. Unlike the 80/20 Rule, the court explained, the 30-minute limitation originated solely in the 2021 Final Rule. It therefore lacked the decades of administrative history supporting the 80/20 Rule. Once the Fifth Circuit vacated the 2021 amendments and the DOL restored the earlier version of the regulation, the legal basis for the 30-minute rule ceased to exist.

Accordingly, the court granted the employer’s motion only to the extent that the employee’s claims relied on the 30-minute rule. In all other respects, including claims alleging that the employer improperly claimed the tip credit while requiring excessive non-tipped work under the longstanding 80/20 Rule, the motion was denied, allowing the employee’s FLSA and Ohio Constitution claims to proceed.

The case is No. 1:23-cv-760.

Judge: Black, T.

Attorneys: Ryan A. Winters (Scott and Winters Law Firm) for Zac Francis. James M. Patrick (Fisher & Phillips) for Hard Rock Cafe International (STP), Inc.

Companies: Hard Rock Cafe International (STP), Inc.

Cases: WageHour MinimumWage ClassActions WorkingTime FederalRegulations OhioNews