Total Articles: 14
Ogletree Deakins • March 09, 2017
The Texas Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District recently reversed and remanded a judgment in favor of an employer on an employee’s claim of retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The court found there to be a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a change in the employer’s stated overtime policy, which was implemented after the employee filed an overtime lawsuit against the employer and applied only to that specific employee, constituted a materially adverse employment action. Tooker v. Alief Independent School District, No. 14-15-00124-CV (January 4, 2017).
Jackson Lewis P.C. • March 14, 2016
The substantive provisions of the FLSA protect covered non-exempt employees’ right to receive minimum wage and, as applicable, overtime pay. The statute’s anti-retaliation provision is co-extensive: it protects employees from termination or other adverse employment action in response to complaints that those provisions were violated. The FLSA however does not extend anti-retaliation protections to employees making generalized complaints about working conditions. This principle is set forth in a new order from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’ affirming a Nevada federal court’s prior ruling. Richard v. Carson Tahoe Regional Healthcare, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3932 (9th Cir. 2016).
Goldberg Segalla LLP • May 29, 2015
The question of whether a threat to reduce pay constitutes an adverse employment action is before the Fifth Circuit. Last week, a trucking school asked the Fifth Circuit to uphold a trial court decision dismissing the case on summary judgment, in part due to the fact that while the plaintiff alleged that she was threatened with a pay cut, she quit prior to receiving a cut in pay. A reversal of the trial court decision would lead to a significant expansion of the scope of actionable retaliation in the Fifth Circuit and likely beyond.
Franczek Radelet P.C • May 08, 2015
On April 20, the Second Circuit filled a gap left open by the Supreme Court by extending the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) anti-retaliation provisions to oral complaints made to an employer (rather than just complaints made to a government agency). In Greathouse v. JHS Security, Inc., the appeals court cited both Supreme Court precedent and EEOC and DOL statutory interpretations to support this broader reading of the FLSA.
Ogletree Deakins • May 01, 2015
Greathouse v. JHS Security Inc., No. 12-4521 (2d Cir. Apr. 20, 2015): The Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the Southern District of New York’s decision dismissing an employee’s wage retaliation claim against his employer. In doing so, the Second Circuit held that oral, internal complaints made to an employer are protected from retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Phelps Dunbar LLP • February 19, 2013
In Moore v. Appliance Direct, Inc. (11th Cir., No. 11-15227, 2/13/13), the Eleventh Circuit held that an award of liquidated damages for a retaliation claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") is discretionary, not mandatory. In March 2008, plaintiffs, delivery truck drivers, filed suit against their employer, Appliance Direct, Inc., and its Chief Executive Officer, Sei Pak, alleging violations of the overtime provisions of the FLSA. Prior to and during the pendency of the overtime lawsuit, Appliance Direct began changing the employment status of its delivery drivers from employees to independent contractors. Although other delivery drivers formerly employed by Appliance Direct received offers to become independent contractors, those delivery drivers involved in the overtime lawsuit did not receive offers and their employment was terminated. As a result, plaintiffs filed a second action alleging that Appliance Direct and Pak violated the anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA by retaliating against them for filing the overtime lawsuit.
Nexsen Pruet • March 22, 2012
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is a statute of broad application that regulates, among other things, the payment of overtime. It includes an â€œanti-retaliationâ€ provision, found at 29 USC Â§ 215(a)(3), that prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee "because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter."
Franczek Radelet P.C • February 08, 2012
According to the facts described in her complaint, Kathy Minor was hired by Bostwick Laboratiries, Inc. as a medical technologist on December 24, 2007.
Nexsen Pruet • May 16, 2011
The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that the anti-retaliation provision
of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) extends to an employeeâ€™s oral complaints. The
anti-retaliation provision, 29 U.S.C. Â§ 215(a)(3), makes it illegal for an employer â€œto 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]...â€ (emphasis added). In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.,
131 S.Ct. 1325 (2011), the Court held that the term â€œany complaintâ€ includes oral and
written complaints. The decision in Kasten continues a recent trend of rulings that have
expanded employment-related anti-retaliation laws.
Franczek Radelet P.C • March 28, 2011
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.
Ogletree Deakins • March 23, 2011
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.
Fisher Phillips • March 23, 2011
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.
Ogletree Deakins • November 09, 2010
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.
Ogletree Deakins • August 13, 2009
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.