Total Articles: 21
4th Circuit: FLSA Prohibits Retaliation For Internal Complaints
According to the facts described in her complaint, Kathy Minor was hired by Bostwick Laboratiries, Inc. as a medical technologist on December 24, 2007.
DOL Issues Fact Sheets on Retaliation
The Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) has issued three new fact sheets on unlawful retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA).
The Fair Labor Standards Act Anti-retaliation Provisions and Job Applicants - the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Says Not Applicable
We have all heard the cautionary tales about how retaliation cases are skyrocketing at exponential rates. Most employers know that once an employee files a complaint, any subsequent action against that employee carries with it some risk of a retaliation claim. But what about job applicants – are they protected too? Surely it would be reasonable for employers to assume that taking action against a job applicant because of prior protected activity could also lead to a retaliation claim. While this would be the prudent approach for employers to take, a recent decision from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals turns this position on its head.
Applicant Has No Retaliation Claim against Prospective Employer under FLSA, Fourth Circuit Rules
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Virginia, has held that the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act does not apply to an unsuccessful applicant for employment. Dellinger v. Science Applications Int’l Corp., — F.3d —, No. 10-1499 (4th Cir. Aug. 12, 2011). In Dellinger, a job applicant claimed that a prospective employer extended her a job offer subject to contingencies, but then decided not to hire her because it found out that she sued her former employer for alleged FLSA violations. The district court dismissed the claim, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the plaintiff cannot sue the prospective employer for retaliation under the FLSA when she was not hired. The Fourth Circuit has jurisdiction over Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Fourth Circuit Draws a Line for Retaliation Suits Under the FLSA
On August 12, 2011, the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a job applicant's anti-retaliation suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against her prospective employer. The Fourth Circuit found that a job applicant is not an "employee" under the FLSA and, as a result, concluded that prospective employees cannot sue prospective employers under the FLSA's anti-retaliation provision.
4th Cir: No FLSA Retaliation by Prospective Employers
Can a prospective employer be held liable under the retaliation provision of the FLSA? Not according to the Fourth Circuit and its decision in Dellinger v. Science Applications International Corp..
Complaint re: Wages on Facebook Not Basis for FLSA Retaliation Claim
The FLSA continues to strike fear in the hearts of many employers. And for good reason. The law is difficult to understand and not always easy to apply. Moreover, the penalties for failure to comply are steep and litigation of an FLSA claim--particularly one brought as a class (collective) action--is costly.
ORAL COMPLAINTS CAN PROVIDE BASIS FOR FLSA RETALIATION CLAIM (pdf).
The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that the anti-retaliation provision
of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) extends to an employee’s oral complaints. The
anti-retaliation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3), makes it illegal for an employer “to discharge
or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has
filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related
to [the FLSA]...” (emphasis added). In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.,
131 S.Ct. 1325 (2011), the Court held that the term “any complaint” includes oral and
written complaints. The decision in Kasten continues a recent trend of rulings that have
expanded employment-related anti-retaliation laws.
Supreme Court Continues Expansive Interpretation of Retaliation Claims
On March 22, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court held that oral complaints are protected under the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) anti-retaliation provisions. In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance, the Court resolved a split among the circuits as to whether the statutory term “filed a complaint” found in the FLSA encompasses oral, as well as written, complaints. A 6-2 majority found that, while the language of the statute may be ambiguous, the intent of the FLSA compelled the conclusion that oral complaints are indeed protected. This should come as no surprise to anyone, given how the Court has ruled in a number of cases involving retaliation claims over the past few years.
SUPREME COURT DRAMATICALLY EXPANDS THE CONCEPT OF ILLEGAL RETALIATION.
Employers beware. The U.S. Supreme Court has issued two significant decisions which dramatically expand the concept of illegal "retaliation" under federal job bias and wage hour laws. Both cases make it easier for employees to sue for retaliation.
Supreme Court Holds That FLSA's Antiretaliation Provision Includes Oral Complaints
In a 6-2 decision[1] issued March 22, the U.S. Supreme Court held that oral complaints are covered by the antiretaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), resolving a split of authority among the federal appeals courts on this issue. See Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.
U.S. Supreme Court on FLSA Retaliation
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fair Labor Standards Act's anti-retaliation provision covers oral and written complaints, whether internal or to the government. So, here's some invaluable and insightful advice: don't retaliate against employees who complain about alleged wage and hour violations. Try not to decide whether to retaliate based on if a complaint is oral or written, mmmkay?
U.S. Supreme Court Holds That FLSA Anti-Retaliation Provision Protects Oral Complaints
On March 22, 2011, in a split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that oral complaints are protected under the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. Although the Court discussed the validity of oral complaints at length, it refused to address whether the FLSA covers such oral complaints made solely to a private employer instead of a government agency.
Oral Complaints of FLSA Violations are Protected, Supreme Court Says
Can an oral complaint about an employer’s compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act trigger the retaliation protections of the Act? The Supreme Court says yes, in a 6-2 decision issued on March 22, 2011.
FLSA Retaliation Protection Applies to Oral Complaints
In Kasten v. St. Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employee's oral complaint to his employer about an alleged Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") violation triggers protection from retaliation under the FLSA. In Kasten, the employee claimed that he orally complained to his supervisor that it was "illegal for the timeclocks to be where they were," and if he "challenged the location in court" the company "would lose."
U.S. Supreme Court Holds Oral Complaint Sufficient to Trigger FLSA Retaliation Provision
Continuing its support of employee retaliation claims, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 6-2 that an oral complaint over time-keeping practices constitutes protected activity implicating the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), and that employee complaints need not be written to enjoy statutory protection. Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., No. 09-834 (Mar. 22, 2011). The Court remanded for determination, however, the question whether any complaint made solely to an employer – orally or in writing – falls under the FLSA’s protective mantle. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the case.
Supreme Court Finds Oral Complaints Can Form Basis for FLSA Retaliation Suit (pdf).
On March 22, with Justice Stephen Breyer writing for the 6-2 majority, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employee may proceed with his retaliation lawsuit brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the high court, the statutory term "filed any complaint" includes oral, as well as written, complaints. This ruling signals yet another expansion of the anti-retaliation laws.
Supreme Court Defines "Complaint" In Significant Wage-Hour Case.
Sometimes cases turn on a single word or phrase, whether those pivotal words are found in a statute, regulation, rule, handbook or an email. It's a rarity that those singular expressions or phrases have as widespread an impact as the words at issue in a Supreme Court decision issued on March 22, 2011. In a 6 -2 ruling (Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case), the Supreme Court clarified the meaning of the words "filed any complaint" from the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) anti-retaliation provision. Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.
Another Interesting Development from Last Tuesday - $4 MDV for FLSA Retaliation
While most eyes were turned to the election results last Tuesday night, a former Los Angeles policeman was enjoying a $4 million dollar verdict in his favor, after a jury agreed that he had been fired because of his testimony in a federal wage and hour lawsuit brought against the city by another officer.
Retaliation and the FLSA: U.S. Supreme Court Grants Cert
Wage-and-hour lawsuits filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), are the hottest thing going for plaintiffs lawyers. And a worst-case scenario for an employer named as a defendant. FLSA cases can be very difficult to defend; the law imposes what is almost strict liability under most circumstances. So, when a court issues a decision in favor of an employer, it is worthy of notice. And when the U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari of such a decision, its definitely worthy of notice.
Verbal Complaints About Time Clock Not Protected Under Federal Law.
A federal appellate court recently dismissed a lawsuit brought by an employee who claimed that he was fired after he allegedly made verbal complaints regarding the location of the company's time clocks. The court found that the worker could not establish a retaliation claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) because only written complaints are "protected activity" under the federal law.
