« Registered Starbucks card users get free tickets to "Akeelah and the Bee" | Main | Meet the woman who selects the movies Starbucks will help to promote »

April 01, 2006


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tips-related lawsuit against Starbucks granted class-action status:

» Class Action Lawsuits from Class Action Lawsuits

» Class Action Lawsuits from Class Action Lawsuits
Dietary supplements class action lawsuits.BAYCOL LAWSUIT | CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT | FEN PHEN LARIAM | CLASS AC... [Read More]


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


He is nuts, employees aren't required to share tips with managers. How did this even make it to court?

managers in CA are hourly

well if managers in CA are hourly then they probably ought to share in the tips no?


In my CA store, the manager and assistant managers did not get a cut of the tips.


managers should not get tips if they're in the back room doing managerial work while the baristas are busting their asses. when my manager runs a shift it is obvious that he cannot run it as a shift supervisor or a barista.


My manager gets no share of tips...

barista c

Even if they are hourly, they shouldn't get tips. ASMS are hourly and don't get tips.


managers out there are salaried but non-exempt, not hourly. They can get OT but do not share in tips.

QC Latte

OK, I know that's a release from the law firm representing Mr. Chou, but it's all the funnier for it. The best is this one:

"A. Eric Aguilera of the firm of Bohm, Matsen, Kegel & Aguilera LLP, counsel for Chou, stated, "We are pleased with the Court's ruling because thousands of employees' claims will be able to be resolved in one action.""

Right! What they are really pleased with is that a class action brings thousands of employees' claims into one action onder their supervision. What lawyer isn't happy when a bigger fee lands in their lap?

(turns off sarcasm circuit)

Christopher Meisenzahl

Interesting, I really don't know anything about this topic.

What effects might the outcome have on waitressing and restaurant tips in general?


I believe that anyone busting their asses making drinks (manager or not) deserves tips. Then again I work at a licensee location so we split our tips after every shift is over.. Which I think is more fair anyway.

QC Latte

Christopher: Not much. Waitstaff really only makes enough per hour (from the employer) to cover taxes and other deductions. Currently I believe the rate is under $3/hr. Back when I was bartending, our servers got $2.13 as minimum. Restaurant managers, on the other hand, were salariedand bonused out based on sales. Their interest was in making sure that the waitstaff had everything they needed to sell the menu. Big difference compared to this one. (Which, by the way, I really don't understand.)

Ash: I agree. Again, it's a matter of degree. The whole tip thing helps keep the cost of partners down a bit. Since company policy prevents salaried partners from collecting on this (I'm keeping out of the lawsuit as it really doesn't make sense from what I've read), we've been known to do nice things like sping for lunch for our management partners after particularly hectic weeks. The SM "tries" to object until we all gang up on her ;-)

As for splitting at the end of the shift...
I've worked places that do that, and it worked fine. Also been places where that caused people to suddenly realize their availability had become limited...to the profitable shifts. This method of splitting at the end of the week actually not only prevents that kind of animosity towards slower shifts, but increases the team dynamic in our store.

When everyone is do what is needed on any given shift, it is with the knowledge that they will be getting an even cut. Our slower times are used to set up the folks that face the uncaffinated masses every day. And those busy times are able to better focus on the guest with the result of higher hourly tip rates for everyone.


Well, my impresion was always that managers cant even touch tips. IE they cant drop them in the safe, they cant count them at the end of the week, so on and so forth. A good reason they dont get tips is due to the amount of non-coverage, documented and non-documented. Theres alot of time they just sit around because they dont help customers.


'just sit around'?

either you have a poor manager, or have a poor sense of what it takes to manage the store.

either way managers in canada never get tipped out. even though they may deserve it for the 32 hours a week they act as baristas.


None of you "deserves" the tips. Not the workers, not the managers.

If you were getting paid what you "deserve" you'd be making a *lot* more money. If you were getting paid a "fair" wage you'd be making a lot more money.

And if there were any justice in the world you wouldn't need to solicit tips.

When we give you the tips it is because working sucks, and not just for you. Our jobs, generally speaking, suck. *We* *also* do not generally get paid what we deserve.

But we recognize that in the big scheme of things you folks working at Starbucks have it a bit worse at the moment and yet you manage to smile at each and every one of us.

Plus we have to stand there while you make the coffee and if we don't tip we have to sort of feel like an a-hole for a few minutes, which sucks.

So we pay the tip.

We tip out of a mixture of working-man camaraderie and ego.

And I feel it every bit as much camaraderie for your manager as for you. Sure, she might not have to smile at everybody, but it's not like she's getting rich back there. Many of us customers know what it is like to be a relatively powerless manager.

Of course, no one is above the law. But it bugs me that people act like this is a moral debate.


PS Why do people keep writing they are "busting their a**es?" You are mixing espresso, not working in a coal mine.

Try working in a kitchen. Or picking coffee beans. Or milking some cows.

If I, consumer, distributed my tips based on which supplier "busts their a**" the most, 99% of the money would be going to China for the people who build all the cr*p I buy at Target.


Hey drinker, I'd bet money on the fact that you wouldn't survive one month working 40 hour weeks as a barista. You probably wouldn't even last one.


I cant believe ppl think the managers just sit around.. if it wasnt for them there wouldnt be a store in the first place


California must have some wierd arrangement with the tips because here in AZ manager's and ASM's are not privy to tips and splitting tips at the end of a shift will only happen on day like Christmas, besides that the tips are divided based on your weekly number of coverage hours. Though I think the non-coverage clean-sweepers should definitely be elligible for tips for their super extra hard deep cleaning work. Clean sweeping can be truly vomitous at times. Maybe it's time for a clean sweeper class action lawsuit...hmmmmm


Managers get compensated for their work, for meeting sales goals, for keeping expenses down (that includes keeping floors understaffed), and they receive more vacation time too. They also get bonuses when baristas/shifts get promoted to AM, and more bonuses if those people eventually become managers themselves.

Don't tell me that they need to share compensation with baristas who, if they were allowed to work full-time (which they are not) would still make under $20,000/year and possibly be eligible for food stamps in some states.

1. Everything is elgible for tips except Training.

2. Having worked in a kitchen and at SBUX they are equally crazy. Both involve busting your ass.



Firstly, Managers are not qualified to recieve tips nor do they have any contact with them generally, per Starbucks policy. Do not, just because a lawsuit has been filed, assume that it has merit...far more do not than do.
Secondly, there is nothing disallowing baristas from working full time. Neither corporate policy nor unspoken agreement. There isn't even an incentive to prevent baristas from working full time, since part timers recieve the same benefits full time does. The only thing that restricts barista hours are their availibility and willingness to find shifts to work.


Wow. Rich sentiments here. I wish I could subsidize my pay with some of my employees dollars. Sounds like Starbucks should take better care of their managers and pay them what they deserve. In coffee, labor is the biggest expense because the product is so inexpensive. 2.00 a pound that Starbucks then sells for 15.00 a pound, sounds like a win, win. They roast their coffee with automated machines and now have automated brewing equipment so the baristas job has been reduced to "milk steamer". Maybe they should just automate their managers next and turn into the Borg. If not, at the very least pay the managers what they deserve, with all their new cost savings.


they receive more vacation time too. They also get bonuses when baristas/shifts get promoted to AM, and more bonuses if those people eventually become managers themselves.

1. Sbux partners reicieve vacation based on how long they've worked there, not position. First year is 2 weeks (I think), after 3 years is 3 weeks. But, you get vacation based on how many hours you work, meaning that if your average working week is 25 hours then your first year you will get 50 hours of vacation. Manager's work (read: get paid for) 40 hours a week, so a first year manager will get 80 hours of vacation.

2. We do not recieve bonuses for promoting/developing partners. It just makes us look good, which in turn might help us come performance review time. The same way helping to train a new partner would make an hourly partner look good and help during a performance review.


" there is nothing disallowing baristas from working full time. Neither corporate policy nor unspoken agreement."

Not true. An old manager of mine told me how he'd get chewed out "for letting baristas go into overtime." I have seen MULTIPLE managers in stores I've worked send baristas and shifts home when they hit 39.5 hours for the week so they won't go into OT.

Hell, it just happened last week to a barista I work with last Friday -- he left two hours before his shift was officially over because he'd worked extra hours earlier in the week and was about to go into OT.

"We do not recieve bonuses for promoting/developing partners" -- Nope. Managers -- at least out on the East Coast -- get bonuses for promoting shifts into AMs, and they get a further bonus if they hit Manager.


Binn- I've never worked ANYWHERE where OT was an option unless things were messed up beyond belief and they had exhausted every option for coverage. Being one person down for a couple of hours happens occiasionally, but it's not usually horrible.


Binn overtime is not fulltime. Say this with me..overtime is not fulltime. OVERtime is called overtime because it goes BEYOND fulltime. No one has a right to work over time. My statement was there is no rule that restricts partners from working full time. Reading is fundamental.


justsomebarista, I don't know where else you've worked, but I've worked at lots of companies with similar pay scales which let you do overtime without problem -- paralegal work, telemarketing, etc.

But I've NEVER seen a strict down-from-above policy against OT like the one at SBUX.

And that's my point -- some people here (including someone who claims to be a Manager) claims there's *no* policy against overtime, but that's a flat-out mistruth. And (going back to the topic of this blog post) when you have a well-compensated Manager overseeing baristas who could not live on a SBUX wage of 39.9 hours/week, it's just absurd and sleazy to consider that the Mgr. could conceivably try to dip into the tip jar.

deusx, baristas cannot work fulltime. Period. There's no such thing as a 40-hour-a-week barista at Starbucks. Hit 39.5 hours during the week and you're sent home.

Talking about dancing on the needle-head of 'fulltime' is irrelevant to either my point about managers getting tips (which they WERE doing, according to Starbucks' own lawyers, contrary to your disbelief), or my point that SBUX employees working up to fulltime don't make enough to live on (hence the sleaziness of managers trying to take tips), or the fact that SBUX doesn't permit overtime.


Binn, where are you getting your information from? I've been a manager for a while (in the midwest and east coast) and I've promoted a few people to ASM. I haven't seen one extra cent in my check for that...other than a higher grade in the partner development section of my review.

As far as overtime goes, there is a policy about overtime. Time worked=time paid (at least for hourly partners). If someone works more than 40 hours, they get get paid time and a half. Hourly partners should not go into overtime if it can be avoided, but the SM or DM will approve if it is neccessary. (The rationale being that if you're store is well-staffed enough, you shouldn't need to pay someone one and a half times their salary to do the same job). If a partner works OT without approval (say, by working at another store without telling the SM), s/he is subject to a corrective action.


Don't forget you Starbucks employees....Class action means you can join the case too and get some cash. Does Starbucks track tips? It seems this would be incredibly difficult to prove if there is no accounting of tips. All you Starbucks workers let me know how you can prove a manager was taking tips.


Binn, full time is considered by the federal government to be anything over 35 hours a week. No one here has said that Starbucks doesn't have a policy about restricting over time hours, and despite your claims most companies do. There are exceptions only when there are labor shortages and they have no choice.
Coffeeaddict you make a good point, the couple people who are causing this stink are shooting we baristas in the foot. All that is going to result of this is even more stringent tracking of tips and less money going into our pockets. Starbucks policy of keeping management as far from the tips as possible was as much for us as them. What the manager didn't know about, the IRS couldn't force them to tell, yknow?


Btw, I polled a communication blog that we have set up. At least ten partners from California from different stores spoke up and said they had never heard of any manager demanding a share of the tips. It's not a policy, nor is it widespread obviously. I'm interested to know how this case qualified to be put as a class action suit with an obviously limited number of litigants.

Guys, ages ago I was contacted by a lawyer pursuing this case. This is NOT a "manager" issue--they are using the word Manager in order to qualify for a strange exemption in California. Some asshat barista decided that Shift Supervisors techncially qualify as Managers according to California law and as a result should not get a share of tips.

I don't know about the rest of you, but as a former shift, I worked as hard as ANY of my baristas--moreso! And did NOT get a share of any of the management bonuses--so I see NO REASON that I, as a shift, should not get a cut of tips!

Coffeeguy. :)

Agreed. Shifts work hard. So do managers. They both deserve a cut of the tips.


I agree with anonymous guy. I was a shift for a year, and I worked my ass off. Almost every shift I know works his or her ass off. It's probably the most challenging position in the store, and they get paid like crap. If anything, they deserve a bigger share of the tips.

Randall Newburgh

My daughter just started working at Starbucks in the Clevland, Ohio area. It seems as though she is a target of harrassment from a assistannt manager who is determined to create a hostile work enviroment for her. Recently she was a victim of public ridicule for being too slow while making some cold beverages. Does anyone have a suggestion as to who to address this problem with on the corporate level? It should be noted that this person is generally obnoxious and rude to others especially new employees and even customers.


Great idea Daddy, please harass the DM so that the assistant manager will leave your baby alone. That's great. You can reinforce your daughter's penchant for running to daddy for every problem.

OK, that's not necesserily fair, since I don't know you or your daughter, but PLEASE, before you go to corporate and possibly ruin this assistant manager's career, PLEASE answer me this: Have you personally witnessed this harrassment? Did you witness the "public ridicule"? Is this guy truly harassing your daughter, or is he telling her to do her job and demanding high standards while doing so? I have seen a lot of managers have trouble with teenage partners, because they don't care about the quality of the job that they're doing. I inherited a teenager in my latest store that complained to corporate because I kept writing him up when he consistently came 20 minutes late for work, if he showed up at all. He couldn't understand why I was such a "hard-ass" about it, or why I asked to him to act like he cared and not be half-asleep on the job.

Please Mr. Newburgh, have the tough conversation with your daughter. Ask her what exactly constitutes harrasment. Ask her exactly what's going on in the store. If you get vague answers like "he just hates me," or "he picks on me for no reason," or "he gets on me for every little thing," please dig deeper and ask her to be more specific. Keep in mind that the human resources people will ask her the same questions if it gets to that point. If you feel like your daughter really is being harassed, encourage her to talk to the store manager first. If s/he is unresponsive, then the district manager. If s/he is unresponsive, then look up the number to the regional office in Cleveland and talk to someone in partner (human) resources. I encourage you to let her do this HERSELF. If she feels strongly enough to file a complaint against this guy, she should be able to file it herself. If you have any questions about the process, post here and I'll answer. So will many others, I'm sure.


Managers get bonuses not tips.


Tip jars do not contain tips. Tips are a consumer's constitutional right to spend his money however he chooses, which includes determining presicely who should receive a tip and how much that induvidual should receive. The reason there is currently a class action law suit against Starbucks alledging tips are being improperly handled, is because the State of California is errantly allowing businesses an ability to handle and control the consumer's tip.

When state laws are incorrectly interpretted as laws which allow employer mandated tip pooling, businesses can put out tip jars with no ones name on it and share the money with workers of the business's choosing. The money actually becomes the business's property to control because consumers have successfully been deprived their right and ability to determine for themselves who should receive their tip. Employer mandated tip pooling is an allowance that employer's may deprive the consumer of his constitutional right to determine who should receive his tip and how much that individual should receive.

The courts of California are currently in the process of settling a dipute among workers as to who consumer's were tipping when they placed money into Starbuck's tip pooling jar. If Calfornia was interpreting it's labor laws corrrectly, there would be no class action lawsuit, for the tip jars Starbucks are putting out would be evidence that Starbucks is violataing state law by mandating that the consumer's tip must be pooled. Employer mandated tip pooling is in violation of California labor code, section 351 and therefore tip jars which solicit money for a tip pool would also be in violation of section 351.

Section 351 prohibits employers from mandating that all tips must be pooled by declaring that tips can be paid, given or left for an individual employee.

California Labor Code specifically declares that an individual employee who is left, given or paid a tip, can claim the tip as his sole property. California 351 states that every gratuity is hereby declared to be the sole property of the "employee" or "employees" to whom it was paid, given, or left for. The courts of California are currently interpreting section 351 incorrectly, for they have ruled that employers may mandate that the tips received from the public must be pooled and shared among a group of workers, clearly ignoring the fact that California law has clearly outlined that an individual may claim a tip as his sole property. The fact that California laws have specifically declared that an individual may claim a tip as his own, substantiates the fact that California law allows consumer's an ability to tip an individual employee. By incorrectly interpreting section 351 as a law that allows employers to mandate that the comnsumer's tip must be pooled, California is contravening state law. Employers cannot be permitted to mandate that all tips be pooled when California labor code specifically declares that tips can become the property of an individual. By allowing employers an ability to mandate that all tips be pooled and shared among a group of workers, the courts of California are contradicting state law by declaring tips to be the property of a group of workers. California law specifically outlines that tips may become the individual's property. A ruling that employers may share an indivual worker's tips among a group of workers is a ruling that declares the consumer's tip to be the property of a group of workers. Such rulings are undeniably in error when the language of section 351 clearly has explained that tips may become the property of an individual. The key to understanding section 351 revolves around the fact that it is the consumer's right and responsibility to determine for himself who he is paying, leaving or giving a tip to. The courts of California cannot interpret 351 as allowing employers to mandate that the consumer's tip be shared among a group of workers when consumers cannot be prohibited from giving an individual a tip. A ruling that employers may mandate that the consumer's tip be shared among a group of workers is a ruling that unconstitutionally prohibits consumer's from determining that his tips should be the sole property of an individual employee.

By incorrectly interpreting state law as allowing employer mandated tip pooling, the courts have placed themselves in the impossible position of determining for the consumer who his tip is intended for when clearly it should be understood that it is the consumer's exclusive right, not the court's right, to determine who his tip is intended for.


If workers at Starbucks want tips, then they should put a jar out with their name on it. The problem is, Starbucks obviously doesn't want their workers to actually receive tips. Starbucks insists on having a jar put out for customers that has no one's name on it. You see, if there where a jar for each worker, Starbucks couldn't even think about sharing the tips with managers. If Starbucks even attempted to share the tips in, lets say, Bob's tip jar, it would be an obvious violation of state labor law. Tips are declared to be the sole property of the employee or employees they are paid, given or left for. Since Bob's name is on the jar, Bob's tips would be protected as Bob's property for their could be no claim that his tips were someone else's.

The fact that Starbucks does not allow consumer's an ability to actually designate who their tip is intended for, is proof that Starbucks is soliciting money for Starbucks to control to their interests. What Starbucks is doing is deceiving customers into placing money into a jar that not only suggests, but states, that such moneys are tips, and yet the truth of the matter is the moneys placed into these jars cannot legally be considered tips when clearly the employer will have control over such moneys.

Tip jars with no one's name on them, along with employer required tip pooling, are business practices which fraudulently turn the employee's property, his tips, into the business's property.
You see, when business adopt business practices that blatantly deprive consumer's of their right to determine for themselves who should receive their tip, they are, in effect, depriving consumer's of their right to tip. As such, the money being presented by customers cannot legally be established as money belonging to the workers and the money becomes the property of the employer.

The problem with such business paractices is not that they violatate state law, even though they do. The real problem with such business practices are that they defraud the public. While the public is led to beleive that they may tip workers, business practices which blatantly deprive the public of their right and ability to determine for themselves who should receive their tip, such as tip jars with no ones name on it and employer mandated tip pooling policies, change the consumer's perceived tip into business revenues.

Please see, IRS definition of tip.

To constitute a `tip' in the commonly accepted meaning of the term, it is inherent in the nature thereof that certain fundamental characteristics be present. It must be presented by the customer free from compulsion; he must have the unrestricted right to determine the amount thereof; and such amount should not be the subject of negotiation or dictated by employer policy. Generally, the customer has the right to determine precisely who shall be the recipient of his generosity. The absence of any of these factors creates a serious doubt as to whether the payment is really a tip and indicates that it is in fact a service charge for the use of certain facilities.

You see, businesses know that if they control such things as who should receive the consumer's tip, how much an employee should receive as tip, and whether a tip will be given, as is the case with service charges, the money will legally be viewed as property of the business. Business practices such as tip jars with no one's name on it and employer mandated tip pooling both deprive the consumer of his ability to determine who should receive his tip and what amount that worker should receive. Since the employer is openly exerting control over the money's presented as tip, the employer is taking possession of those tips. The problem is, while the IRS clearly understands that moneys controlled by the employer are not tips and are instead business revenues, they seem to ignore the fact that such business practices would constitute fraud on the consumer. If consumer's are not informed that the tips they are presenting are going to become the business's property due to the fact that the business has a policy of tip pooling, and as such is controling and making tips the business's property, then consumer's will unkowingly be giving the business additional revenues when they think they are giving the worker a tip.

Business who utilize mandated tip pooling policies are blatantly defrauding the public. They are turning the employee's tip into the business's property and neglecting to inform customers that the money they are presenting will become the business's property to control to the business's interests.

Calfiornia labor code clearly affirms what I have just stated. California labor laws, section 356 states clearly that the purpose of their laws on tips is to prevent fraud upon the public in connection with the practice of tipping and declares that this article is passed for a public reason and can not be contravened by a private agreement.

What this section actually means is that if businesses collect, take or receive any gratuity or a part thereof that is paid, given to, or left for an employee by a patron, it would constitute fraud on the public. To prevent such evident fraud on the public, California has adopted laws which prohibit employers from taking or controling the tips the public presents employees.

The problem is, California is allowing fraud on the public. While their laws clearly state that no employer shall collect, take or receive any gratuity or a part thereof that is paid, given to, or left for an employee by a patron, California is allowing employers an illegal ability to take and collect the gratuites paid, left and given for an employee by incorrectly interpreting their labor laws as laws which allow employers to mandate tip pooling.

California labor laws prohibit employer mandated tip pooling. Such business practices are nothing but fraud on the public. The tips consumer's present workers in California are fraudulently becoming the business's property all because California refuses to understand and correctly interpret their labor laws.


Look, if you were being forced to share the money in your billfold with people on the street, would it not be obvious that someone was attempting to steal your money? Employees across this country are being forced to share their tips with other workers and no one seems to recognize the fact that such acts are stealing.

Employers cannot be allowed to mandate that their employees share their tips, for such would constitute a crime. While many states like California are allowing such crimes, they will never be legal. Stealing is a crime. If someone shares your property with others without your consent it is stealing. An allowance that employers may mandate that all tips be shared is an allowance that employer's may steal their worker's tips. This is the truth and it will never go away.


Gary i dont think anyone really cares anymore

Wow, Gary put a lot of effort into this...


If you actually go and read the lawsuit specifics, you will see that the term manager is being referred to the shift supervisors. From my experience, the shift supervisor is on the floor affecting customer service just as much as the baristas.


I received the notice of the lawsuit from the court and Chou claims the Shift Supervisor, not the Manager, was getting tips at the store. Well, this is very cheap on Starbuck's part because anyone in a managerial position should be paid a salary, not an hourly wage. Therefore, the company is being cheap on pay to the shift leads because they get paid hourly and therefore are allowed our barista tips, which in turn causes baristas to receive much less in tips than we should be receiving. Although shift leads and managers may work as hard as us baristas, nonetheless they are supposed to be paid salaries and not have to split tips with hourly wage baristas. LAW. They are playing us barista and shift leads dumb. Good for CHOU, however he/she discovered this info.


i really think that baristas in CA should be started at $14 an hour NOT 7.64 or whatever it is.....its so oppressive.
shift leads should make 20 dollars and hour and
asm's adn managers should be paid in pure gold AND fine wine
I mop up trash juice and spash rotten milk juice in my eye cleaning, too often for minimum wage...
working in food is DISGUSTING there is nothing glamourous about starbucks!
cost of living has quintecentuppled (at least) since the mid 70's and minimum wage has yet to double since then (it was around $4 hr then)


Just a Manager in CA

Well, here is the deal in my district....Managers and Assistant Managers are not allowed to count or drop tips. We don't ever touch them.
And for anybody that thinks I don't bust my a*s, you are very wrong. I do the trash runs, I scrub the bathrooms, clean drains, deck brush floors, scrub baseboards, wash walls that baristas have literally thrown mocha, frappuccino and whatever else they are making drinks with all over. I pick the cigerette butts up out of the flower beds, and scrub the garbage cans that are covered in who knows what out in the drive thru. In addition, I work the floor, train ASM's and new partners, roll out promotions, do set ups, inventory counts, and am responsible for all of the costs with running my store. And no, baristas should never go into overtime. That would be a fiscally irresponsible decision on my part as a manager to allow that to happen. But, why would they need to go into overtime? You get health benefits for working part time, as well as stock options and a 401K. And by the way, don't tell me I don't work hard. I work hard every day and I expect the same from everyone in my store.

goverments stinks

Mr.c probably got fired and is saying his manager made him split the tips so this is the way to get back at him not realizing it is going to mess with everyone in a California Corporate run Starbucks. As for the Safeway Starbucks they don't get tips so Starbucks really don't care either way, because customers will pay 4 bucks for a latte even if they don't have to tip.

iced soy green tea latte


The comments to this entry are closed.

Search Site

Ads (2)