Barenboim v. starbucks, Winans v. Starbucks Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that the second factor weighs in favor of certification where a case “present[s] important issues of [state] law and policy”
• suggesting that a regulation would “raise a retroactivity concern” where it “attach[ed] new penalties or other legal consequences to actions preceding [its] promulgation”
• suggesting that a distinction exists between legislative and interpretive rules for purposes of retroactivity because an interpretive rule merely “clarif[ies] the meaning of an ambiguous statute”
• suggesting that a distinction exists between legislative and interpretive rules for purposes of 35 retroactivity because an interpretive rule merely “clarif[ies] the meaning of an ambiguous statute”
• “[A]n ‘employer’ [is] ineligible to retain gratuities” (citing 29 U.S.C. § 203(m))
• discussing the federal and New York tip credit provisions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).