Reich v. Chez Robert, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently August 2014
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 6621 · 29 U.S.C. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 29 U.S.C. § 207 · 29 U.S.C. § 211 · 29 U.S.C. § 215 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 217
Relies on Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston · Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. · McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co. · Mmahat v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. · Mitchell v. Lublin, McGaughy & Associates
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the Secretary has made no provisions ... for tips actually received by employees. Certainly no precise amount can be determined .... Chez Robert is an expensive “upscale” restaurant and certainly capable of generating income that would have supplemented employees’ incomes to a great degree. Since the Secretary did not account for tips actually received, the Court must apply a discount rate to the damages owed to each employee.... The Court has adjusted Defendants’ liability to account for this inflating factor. The $177,-809.66 in actual damages and the $229,-794.19 in tip credit remunerations will be reduced by 25%. Therefore, after discounting, Defendants’ [sic] are obligated to pay total damages, actual and tip credit, in the amount of $305,702.88.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“... In determining the wage of a tipped employee, the amount paid such employee by his employer shall be deemed to be increased on account of tips by an amount determined by the employer ... except that the amount of the increase on account of tips determined by the employer may not exceed the value of tips actually received by the employee. The previous sentence shall not apply with respect to any tipped employee unless (1) such employee has been informed by the employer of the provisions of this subsection, and (2) all tips received by such employee have been retained by the employee ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It may at first seem odd to award back pay against an employer, doubled by liquidated damages, where the employee has actually received and retained base wages and tips that together amply satisfy the minimum wage requirements. Yet Congress has in section 3(m) expressly required notice as a condition of the tip credit and the courts have enforced the requirement.... If the penalty for omitting notice appears harsh, it is also true that notice is not difficult for the employer to provide.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.