http://www.nyc.com/restaurants/per_se.75461/editorial_review.aspx

Once it goes class action, a gaggle of lawyers piles onto it to "do the work," and then they take a huge chunk of the judgement. What's left gets divided equally among each party in the class, which generally means you end up with 5 bucks and, if you're very lucky, a $10 gift card.

So the bill is $73.

One lady suggested that she had food by stating she had to wait to get utensils herself. I don't know about out east, but it costs at least $10-12 to eat in a bar back here in Illinois.

So even 5 people eating @ $12 is $60, plus drinks (non alcoholic or otherwise) will easily come up to $73.

The $12 figure is a stretch.. Most of the time it costs closer to $15 plus an alcoholic beverage or two.. My wife and I can easily burn through $60 eating at the local irish place..

What is this establishment on "mandatority gratuities" - parties of two or larger???

+1

Gratuity, by definition, can not be demanded. If the bar had listed it as a "service fee" then it could be demanded. Short of a signed contract in advance a "gratuity" is just that, a favor or gift given for good service.

$69.69 + $4.18 (6% sales tax) = $73.87 + $12.54 (18% of $69.69) = $86.41
$69.69 + $4.18 (6% sales tax) = $73.87 + $16.34 (23.46% of $69.69) = $90.22

OR

$72.75 + $4.37 (6% sales tax) = $77.13 + $13.10 (18% of $72.75) = $90.22

That second option is actually pretty close to what they paid ($1.12 off)... Could our college friends have skipped on paying the sales tax as well as the gratuity?

Someone earlier posted a NYT article that said at least in New York, you cannot be forced to pay a gratuity. I know nothing of PA's law on this matter, but the NY version makes sense to me, as long as you are legitimately treated badly.

That said, I think you don't quite grasp the concept of what gratuity is, and the fact that it CAN be withheld if poor service is rendered.

They should amend their menu to state that a mandatory 18% [22%?] service fee will be added to the bill for parties of 6+.

34 TAC §3.1001 (a)(3) mandatory gratuity charge--Any amount required by the permittee in excess of the charge for the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Perhaps *they* should be the ones charged with theft, not the customer?

The place was fairly new and I called over the manager to point this out. He got defensive about the service being included for a party of six and it took a few minutes for him to realize I didn't care about that, I just wanted to let him know he might get in trouble including tax when calculating the service charge.

When he got it, he blamed it on the the programming in the POS (by the way, I love that anagram). Seems to be a problem with whoever sets those things up.

All that said - is there anyone out there who knows how legally binding these "Service charges" or "added gratuities" are?

http://www.revenue.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/document/635307/hotel_tax_matrix_pdf

Sorry, I won't post the whole tax code, but you were able to figure it out last time. Those three dots, that is an ellepsis.... It indicates a break in the text. Just like where I left out the rude word I was going to use.

As a separate issue, I have always believed that restaurants should include the salaries of all wait-staff as part of the posted prices for items ordered. Do not hope that the diners will "do the right thing" by paying the wait-staff the balance of their salary to get them up to the minimum wage they should be getting as an absolute minimium from their EMPLOYER. Then, any tip over and above the bill would truly represent an appreciation and recognition of quality of service.

... unless
1. the charge is separately stated on the bill or invoice given to the customer; and

2. the charge is specifically designated as a gratuity, and

3. all such monies received are paid over in total to employees

Not to mention that that applies to New York, not Pennsylvania.

Just like how, judging by the level of service this group received, the waitstaff at this particular restaurant appears to abuse the hell out of the mandatory gratuity (why offer decent service if you're getting a tip anyway?)

I don't trust anything in the Morning Call.

/has been reported to have been "arrested" on the front page, with pictures.

But they didn't know the price, apparently, since the required gratuity was supposedly 18% and the restaurant reportedly charged 22%.

Now, they're arguing over more than that 4% difference, but there is a 4% difference.

The restaurant owner used a word he didn't understand, plain and simple. He deserves every last bit of bad PR he's getting.

@Liam Kinkaid:

DOINK DOINK!

The only reports I'm seeing refer to the bill as "$73," which does not say either way whether tax is included in the reference.

18% of $90.22 is, in fact, $16.24 (not the exact gratuity charge, but pretty darn close). I'm suspicious that the college students, not liking their service and having a loose grasp on how percentages work, just subtracted 18% of their total rather than the actual gratuity line-item. The math just doesn't work out logically any other way. (Well, doing 18% post-tax gets you pretty close also, but you overshoot.)

Now I really want to see the actual receipt.

[Full disclosure -- I'm a math teacher]

@Red_Flag:
that's only binding in NY.

Saying "service charge" does not imply that the money is going to the service staff, so a different component of the meaning is lost. Consider this question: Does
A) 18% gratuity added to parties of six or more
mean the same thing as
B) 18% mandatory gratuity added to parties of six or more?

I would argue: no! "Mandatory" in this usage is a specifier added to override the customarily voluntary nature of "gratuity". "Mandatory gratuity" hence becomes an idiom that indicates a non-optional charge is being collected for distribution to the service staff, not the restaurant.

I think "mandatory gratuity for parties of six or more" is the clearest way to say who pays the charge (parties of six or more), whether or not it's required (yes*), and where the money is going (to the service staff, not the restaurant).

___
* In the rare instance that someone is so disappointed with the service that they refuse to pay the charge, I think the restaurant should exhibit some flexibility in the interest of customer service. But unlike some proprietors, I have a heart.

It's like me issuing a complaint because your watch is worn on your right wrist instead of your left. If there was not law broken, there is no complaint. Period.

However if you eat half of a hamburger and then decide you don't like it, or if your hamburger was great and your fries were overcooked you can't simply refuse to pay.

It you ate more than a de minimis amount of the food you have accepted it and have to pay.

If you have a spoonful of vegetable soup only to find out it is clam chowder and you send it back then you don't.

@IfThenElvis: Prosecutorial discretion?

Charges can only be filed if there's an actual case.

@IfThenElvis:

Nope, not at all. In criminal matters in Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth (usually represented by a district attorney, but in a summary matter, the police) brings its case against the defendant as a representative of the people as a whole. While DAs may sometimes seek the input of complaining witnesses (and certainly they usually need their cooperation) the question of whether to proceed in the prosecution is the state's alone. A common example of this is in domestic battery cases--frequently the complainant *begs* the DA not to move forward. In many cases, it moves forward anyway.
So far as I know, it works that way in every state. When people casually speak of a complainant not "pressing charges," it usually means that the prosecyution cannot (as a practical matter) proceed without the active cooperation of a victim, and so the prosecution stalls, but I know of no jurisdiction where complainants get to choose.

If 8 people came in, had $200 worth of food they would be billed $244.

If you can see the equity in that you let me know.

Either the prices change when more people dine there, or it is a gratuity. It can't be both.

"the gratuity worked out to about 22% of the bill, and not the 18% that the pub claimed"

Was there sales tax? The amount could have been based on including sales tax.

This is the first instance, where you can draw a lot of attention without a lot of fuss, and without picketing. But no where near the attention they have gotten because they were arrested.

IANAL - in order for theft of service to occur, you would have had to agree to that service, and a recognizable level quality of services would have to be performed.

They were not, therefore, no theft.

From the NYS department of Taxation and Finance.

[nystax.custhelp.com]!!&p_li=&p_topview=1

That good for ya?

And since service is subject to opinion, and if they had gotten *none* they wouldn't have any food or drink at all, let's go back to that comparison to a round of drinks...if they had gotten drinks that were half full, would it be appropriate to charge them for the whole drink, half price, or nothing at all?

I think that the "contract" about the 18% grat implies quality service. I don't expect juggling bears, but there's got to be attention paid.

And juggling bears get tipped 24% or someone gets mauled.

[www.nytimes.com]

This is similar to tax treatment on payroll amounts. If you're paid $50,000 a year "salary", that is taxed based on certain regulatory amounts and by what you've provided to the company on your W-4. If you're paid $50,000 a year as a "bonus", that is taxed at different rates.

While I don't get to that part of PA as much as I did before. I know what restaurant to avoid when I am there.

@FatLynn: I don't think the pub can be taxed on that money, seeing as the money goes right to the server. It is up to the server to report the tip as income though, and pay taxes on it.

@TCama:

You can be certain, but case law trumps your feeling--they didn't have to pay; that's why the da "encouraged" the cops to drop this. Really, there are few things in this world about which I am expert, criminal law in the commonwealth of Pa is one of those things.

@Michael Belisle: I was wondering the same thing. The current article finally explains it:

~The police complaint issued Oct. 23 said Wagner and Pope paid only $73.87 of a $90.22 bill. Denise Pope said her daughter told her the remainder was for a supposedly 18 percent tip that her party was being charged.~

I'm still wondering why, if there were 6 of them, only 2 were ever charged - not that I was ever in favor of anyone being arrested for this, just curious why these two were singled out.

@wrjohnston91283:
that he has a feeling? How exactly would he do that, except for *telling* you that he has the feeling that something is the case? Absent a subpoena, I'm pretty sure none of us is going to have access to the restaurant's financials anytime soon.

Do your really think tipping is fair to both staff and patrons?

@Loias: (This is to explain why the tip they quote amounted to 22% and not 18%).

The bill was 90.22 and they paid $73.87

Do that infinitely and 18% becomes about 21.95%.

Alternatively, the final bill could have been $90.22, with the "tip" factored in and not itemized. Then maybe someone subtracted 18% from that to get the $73.87 they paid.

I wonder if that is how this got started. Could the students have taken the full bill and subtracted 18% from the full bill to (incorrectly) determine what the bill would be without the tip? That is, if the 18% was factored in rather than written separately, maybe they just miscalculated it and the bar owner argued with them over it.

Likely they tipped the tax. There's a reason restaurants post the total after tax in huge lettering while hiding the pre-tax amount: they want you to tip the extra bit to the server.

@Hobz:
Because the wait staff would be taking a pay cut. They're getting 15, 18, 20%+ now. Why would they be happy with less than that?

Customers would also be charged sales tax on the 10% increase, while tips don't have sales tax added on.

Automatic gratuity for a party of 6 (or 8) or more???

Is the auto gratuity considered part of the "price" of the meal and as such must be paid, the same as the meal itself would be paid or face criminal charges?

Nice criminal law enforcement question.

Of course they dropped it... they broke no laws.. now if only they would sue them for false inprisonment or whatever the cool term is.

Any lawyers out there?

@bonzombiekitty:
fantomesq: But they called the charge a "gratuity", which most people understand to not be mandatory. If they said it was a service charge, that'd be different. Either way, if it is mandatory charge, the restaurant has to pay tax on it. I have a feeling they don't.
Back that last statement up.

@htowninsomniac: technically it was the patrons who had their service stolen. thats why they left no tip.

@bonzombiekitty:

Forgot to add--itworks the same in PA.

Granted, it's not the same state, but in NY there was a case in which the court ruled that gratuity automatically added to a bill cannot be mandatory since it's a contradiction in terms.

It's always been my understanding that while a restaurant can automatically add a gratuity to the bill (which is understandable as if a large party were stiff to the server, that's a lot of money lost for him/her) a customer can request that gratuity be lowered to something they deem acceptable.

@fantomesq:

No, it was badly handled by the restaurant and the Bethlehem police. The diners had *every* right not to pay the gratuity--as soon as an actual grown-up saw it (i.e., the da) it was dropped, as it should be.

@TCama:

But it's not a question of majorities or minorities--it's a question of the definition of "gratuity." The fact is, there's no such thing as a "mandatory gratuity." It's simply a contradiction in terms. The fact of the bad service most certainly allows them to not pay a gratuity. The charges were dropped because they were insupportable.

I know it's crappy, if I had to go through what they went through, I'd have been pissed about having to tip on top of it, so I'm not defending the pub here, in that situation, I'm pretty sure I'd just ask to speak to a manager about the amount and try to negotiate it down. Or else pay and write a bad Yelp review and never go back (and let the manager know that's what I'm going to do).

@htowninsomniac:

You're wrong--it was not identified as a service charge, but as a gratuity; hence, the dropped charges.

Want to have a discussion about whether or not these required "gratuities" should exist? Sure, let's have that discussion. But as far as I see it, these people received a bill for a product and service that they used and new the prices of before using. Bad service or not, they should pay up.

I agree with everyone, though, that this was a really bad idea by the pub. They will lose a lot more than the $10 now. Instead, they should have apologized and given the students "buy one, get one free" or "$x off $y" coupons to come back.

@Darrone: Not to mention a possible countersuit from the students themselves.

Well, maybe I don't know all the facts around the case, but as I recall it basically boiled down to the customers getting really crappy service and wanting to decline giving a tip for said crappy service. But the pub was forcing them to pay a tip.

I don't get how the pub thinks it has a leg to stand on...a tip is meant to be a thank-you for good service. If you give horrendous service, you have no right to expect a tip. And under any circumstance, except in the case of large parties who are alerted to the fact they'll be charged a flat-rate tip, the consumer can always choose to not tip if they don't want to...bad manners or no.

IMHO the pub is shooting itself in the foot by meda-circusing this along. I live nowhere near this place, but if I did I definitely would not ever be going there.