Hooters Sued by Hooter's Girls

More than a dozen former and current "Hooters Girls" from the District, Maryland and South Carolina have sued the chicken wing giant for violating minimum wage laws.

The lawsuit filed in the District's federal court late last week, claims the company counted the girls' tips toward the minimum wage and then violated the law by requiring them to pay the company for their uniforms, among other allegations.

The scheme "essentially amounted to kickbacks," to Hooters, said Heidi Burakiewicz, the attorney for the 13 Hooters waitresses. Hooters did not respond to requests for comment.

The waitresses were required to buy their shirts, shorts, aprons, socks, shoes and pins from the company, the lawsuit alleges. The biggest ticket item, however, were nylons for which Burakiewicz said the company charged $4 a pair.

"They're very distinctive pantyhose," Burakiewicz said. "Under no circumstances would you see someone wearing them on the street." The pantyhose wore out quickly, and the girls were often buying new pairs, she said.

Federal law allows an employer to pay a tip-earning employee $2.13 an hour, which the lawsuit claims Hooters did. But, if the employer chooses that path, it can't then charge for uniforms.

An employer paying the lower hourly wage also can't require employees to pool their tips and then have them include typically non-tip-earning employees in the payout. The lawsuit claims that Hooters did just that, making the waitresses share their tips with dishwashers and other kitchen employees.

The suit also alleges the Hooters Girls were not paid overtime for the hours it took to open and close the restaurants, and for the meetings they attended. The nationwide restaurant chain also deducted from the girls' wages the cost of customer "walk-outs," the suit said.

This is the second lawsuit in recent months filed by Hooters Girls alleging the company violated minimum wage laws.

In May, eight girls filed a suit against the company in California claiming their tips were used in a similar scheme.

Burakiewicz said her law firm, Woodley & McGillivary, is planning to ask the court to create a nationwide class action suit.

Restaurant Policies Punish Tipped Employees

Things have been getting busy around the office. With the downturn in the economy, it seems that many restaurant owners and managers are looking for a way to lower costs and bump up profits. Unfortunately, it seems that wait staff and other tipped employees are the first to suffer.

My first thought on this trend is for restaurant management to understand that your most important employees are the ones that have direct contact with your customers. If your front of the house (FOH) staff is unhappy, the image they transmit to the customers is the same and that hurts business.

My second thought on the trend is if you need to cut costs, do not start with staff who are making only $4.23/hr. (the new minimum wage for tipped employees in Florida). After 25 years in the restaurant business I have found that the best way to cut costs is to keep a closer eye on the kitchen. One over-cooked 16oz. NY Strip will set you back $6.50 just for the steak. Put another properly cooked steak on the plate and it cost you $13.00 just in meat to make $15.95.

Although the state of Florida does not have very strong laws to protect hospitality workers, the Federal government does. There are very strict laws as to who may participate in tip pools and the proper rate which needs to be paid for overtime.

The Law Office of Lowell J. Kuvin specializes in protecting hospitality workers rights throughout the entire state. Some of the recent cases we are working on include:

• Servers working at a restaurant were not paid any hourly wages and were required to contribute each week to the money paid to the restaurant cleaning crew.

• Servers at a country club were required to pool their tips in which the salaried management received a large portion.


• Servers at a restaurant were not allowed to clock in until they were sat their first table. They were required to be at the restaurant 1 hour prior to opening and were not paid for doing their set up side work. Additionally, two of the servers claim they were sexually harassed by the kitchen staff and management. When they complained to management they were told to toughen up. SETTLED

If you think the restaurant you work at is breaking the law, please contact our office for free to discuss the issues.

Law Office of Lowell J. Kuvin
22 NE 1st Street Suite 201
Miami Florida 33132

Tel: 305.358.6800
Fax: 305.358.6808
Toll: 888.KUVINLAW (588.4652)
lowell@kuvinlaw.com

Snapper on your plate may be an impostor

Genetics professor Mahmood Shivji didn't get into DNA research to strike fear in the hearts of restaurant owners and chefs.

But the Guy Harvey Research Institute, which he heads, is a virtual CSI: Seafood lab these days. The widespread -- and illegal -- practice of fish substitution at restaurants has placed Shivji's marine life genetics expertise in high demand.

In the last two years, Shivji has analyzed upward of 100 restaurant plates from across the country, more than half the time proclaiming that the dish was not the grouper or snapper specimen that diners thought they were eating. Instead, restaurants secretly served up cheaper fish such as catfish or tilapia.

``It's consumer fraud,'' said Shivji, who teaches at Nova Southeastern University. ``You're paying for item X and usually grouper and red snapper are on the higher end of the price list.''

With domestic grouper costing restaurants $11 or $12 a pound -- and imported catfish available for a mere $2.50 a pound -- unsavory chefs can profit handsomely from this unethical bait-and-switch.

Shivji has picked apart breaded fillets, fillets doused in sauce, even charred fillets left on the grill a little too long.

``We can tell with 100 percent certainty'' whether restaurants are scamming, Shivji said. The professor's initial interest in identifying fish through DNA came from his passion for conservation. The federal government was having a hard time enforcing protections for endangered shark species, for example, because rogue fishermen would chop up their illegal shark catches in ways that hid any identifying features.

But chopping up a fish can't hide the DNA, Shivji reasoned. Shivji went on to pioneer a new way of testing shark DNA that has been instrumental in cracking down on the shark fin trade.

SCOPE OF PROBLEM

Enter CBS4's Al Sunshine. Sunshine approached Shivji in 2007 with the idea to use the power of DNA to expose fish-swapping restaurants. Sunshine had to do a bit of arm-twisting to convince Shivji to run the first test, but Shivji's skepticism melted as the evidence of rampant seafood fraud poured in.

``It just validates the argument that this is a national, if not international, problem,'' Sunshine said.

Shivji's phone was soon deluged with calls from TV reporters in other towns. Shivji dutifully accepted and tested their frozen fish samples -- mailed in from places that included Los Angeles, New York and Charlotte, N.C.

Shivji has also fielded inquiries from an unidentified local fish wholesaler (who wanted to make sure his inventory was legit) and the Missouri attorney general's office (which was investigating restaurants in Kansas City).

Fish mislabeling persists in part because it is virtually impossible for federal and state regulators to police all of the nearly five billion pounds of seafood consumed by Americans each year -- more than 80 percent of which is imported.

Many restaurant patrons are also unfamiliar with the differences between species -- they might order grouper simply because it's a name they've heard before. ``Most consumers can't really tell the difference between a grouper and a catfish,'' said Carlos Sanguily, vice president of Doral-based fish importer JC Seafood.

Aside from not getting what you pay for, fish mislabeling is a serious obstacle to ocean conservation efforts, Shivji said.

Widely popular grouper, for example, is a ``severely overfished'' species, but by appearing (often in name only) on menus everywhere, it creates the false perception that groupers are plentiful.

Fish-swapping can also have health consequences. Some imported fish may be raised in polluted waters, and diners with specific fish allergies can end up eating a fish species they're doing their best to avoid.

Sushi lovers ordering ``White Tuna'' are routinely served escolar, a tasty-but-oily fish that so frequently causes diarrhea it earned the nickname ``Ex-Lax fish.''

In the general genetics class Shivji teaches at NSU every fall semester, seafood fraud has become a teaching tool. Shivji regularly sends an army of students out to local restaurants to collect grouper samples that will be DNA-analyzed in class.

The tests revealed sizable numbers of impostor fish.

``It's got them jazzed up,'' Shivji said of his students. ``They go and talk about it with their families, `We did this and this is what we found.' ''

OVERSIGHT

Of course, keeping restaurants honest isn't solely the job of TV reporters and college researchers. Federal agencies such as the FDA have the ability to fine -- and in extreme cases prosecute -- restaurants and fish distributors that are deceiving buyers. State inspections of restaurants can also prompt fines of those who engage in fish-swapping.

Fort Lauderdale's Tokyo Sushi Express was cited by the state last month for selling customers tilapia billed as snapper. Imitation crab meat was also sold as real crab.

Manager Rob Rodalis said the restaurant had intended to print tilapia on the menu all along. ``I think it was a miscommunication between the one who printed up our menu. . . . It was a mistake,'' Rodalis said.

Rodalis said the restaurant had been unaware that imitation crab needed to be identified as such on menus.

Both federal and state governments have been criticized for not doing enough to catch seafood scammers. In some cases the restaurants can be the victim, with seafood distributors charging top dollar for what are secretly bargain-basement species of fish.

A federal Government Accountability Office report released earlier this year faulted agencies such as the FDA for ineffective, uncoordinated oversight efforts.

Bob Jones, executive director of the Southeastern Fisheries Association, an industry trade group, said U.S. fishermen ultimately suffer from fewer buyers and depressed prices when restaurants opt for selling imported, make-believe grouper. Jones, who estimates close to a quarter of all restaurants are deceiving customers, said diners should be suspicious of seafood deals that are too good to be true.

``If you pay less than $10 for a grouper dinner, your odds, in my opinion, are nil,'' Jones aid. ``You couldn't sell real grouper like that unless you were stealing the grouper.''

Information on restaurants cited by state inspectors for food misrepresentation can be found online at: http://tinyurl.com/m25796

Mr. Chow v. Philippe Round 2

In a case of spied rice, Mr. Chow says rival restaurateur Philippe Chow's staff sneaked into the kitchen of his new Miami outpost in order to steal trade secrets.

Michael Chow, who started the Mr. Chow chain more than three decades ago, yesterday amended his recent trademark infringement lawsuit against his former employee, Philippe, to include charges of "corporate espionage."

The incident, which was captured by surveillance cameras, happened on Tuesday at the soon-to-open Miami Mr. Chow -- just across the street from Philippe Chow's restaurant.

Disguised as a chef, the 65-year-old spy tried to blend in while the kitchen staff was being briefed on the plans for the new restaurant, attorney Alan Kluger said.

When confronted by an executive chef, the spy said he was trying to appear "incognito," and so that "your boss will not notice," according to the lawsuit.

Philippe and his partner, Stratis Morfogen, discounted the allegations.

"This is beyond bizarre and at this point we have no further comment describing michael chow's delusional and paranoid state of mind," Morforgen said.

Mr. Chow v. Philippe Round 1

It's a battle of the Chows, or Chow v. Chau, depending on who you ask.

Restaurateur and art collector Michael Chow, a.k.a. Mr. Chow, filed a lawsuit against Philippe restaurants this week in U.S. District Court in Miami that lists claims of "misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition and trademark infringement," among others. The lawsuit states that Philippe Chow (formerly Chak Yam Chau), chef and partner of Philippe restaurants, willfully caused brand confusion partly by changing his name.

Philippe Chow and partner Stratis Morfogen have opened Philippe restaurants in New York, Mexico and Miami, with one in Las Vegas in the works. Another is scheduled to open in West Hollywood this fall in the former Dolce space on Melrose Avenue. Michael Chow has Mr. Chow restaurants in New York, Beverly Hills, London and soon Las Vegas and Miami.

Philippe Chow worked at Mr. Chow in Manhattan from 1980 to 2005. According to the lawsuit, Philippe went by the last name "Chau" until 2005 before switching to "Chow." Defendants say he changed his name in 1977 when he arrived in the U.S. from Hong Kong.

Morfogen called the lawsuit meritless and without substance.

"It’s unfortunate that we have to take this action,” said Michael Chow. “Philippe has aggressively and shamelessly worked to confuse people into thinking our restaurants are connected, even to the point of referring to himself as 'Mr. Chow.' "

The lawsuit recalls the brouhaha dubbed "battle of the Wolfgangs," when Wolfgang Puck unsuccessfully pursued a suit last year against Wolfgang Zwiener after Zwiener opened a steakhouse called Wolfgang's Steakhouse in the same Beverly Hills turf as Puck's Cut steakhouse.

“I specifically chose to name my restaurant Philippe to alleviate any confusion with Mr. Chow," said Philippe Chow in a statement. "I have nothing but respect for Michael Chow, and the fact that we have the same last name is pure coincidence."