Yesterday (June 2, 2009), California's 4th District Court of Appeals reversed the much-publicized trial decision that barred shift supervisors from sharing in tip jars. They also set aside the $86,000,000 in damages awarded to Starbucks baristas.

Ignore today's press reports, including the L.A. Times, which focus on some comments the court had about the claimed lack of difference between the duties of shift supervisors and ordinary baristas. The decision was actually based solely on the difference between collective tip jars and tips given to individual servers.

"We conclude the trial court erred in ruling that Starbucks's tip-allocation policy violated California law. The applicable statutes do not prohibit Starbucks from permitting shift supervisors to share in the proceeds placed in collective tip boxes. The court's ruling was improperly based on a line of decisions that concerns an employer's authority to mandate that a tip given to an individual service employee must be shared with other employees. The policy challenged here presents the flip side of this mandatory tip-pooling practice. It concerns an employer's authority to require equitable allocation of tips placed in a collective tip box for those employees providing service to the customer. There is no decisional or statutory authority prohibiting an employer from allowing a service employee to keep a portion of the collective tip, in proportion to the amount of hours worked, merely because the employee also has limited supervisory duties. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and order the trial court to enter judgment in Starbucks's favor."

Jou Chau v. Starbucks Corp., 2009 WL 1522708

The drama may not be over. The plaintiffs may appeal to the California Supreme Court.