Supreme Court Decides FLSA Retaliation Case based upon Oral Notice
On March 22, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued a 6-2 decision in the case of Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. Kasten worked for Saint-Gobain and orally complained about the location of the timeclocks, which were located in the area between where Kasten and other workers put on and take off their work related protective gear, and the area where they carry out their assigned tasks. Kasten argued that the timeclock location prevented the workers from being compensated for the time they spent donning and doffing work clothes. In a related suit, the District Court agreed and found that the workers were not properly compensated under the FLSA for the donning and doffing. Kasten was discharged, and he alleged that it was in retaliation for his repeated oral complaints about the location of the time clock in accordance with Saint-Gobain's internal grievance resolution procedure. Kasten alleged that he reported the problem to his shift supervisor, an HR employee, his lead operator and the HR manager. Saint-Gobain maintained that Kasten was terminated because, after repeated warnings, he failed to record his comings and goings on the timeclock.
The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Saint-Gobain, concluding that the FLSA's anti-retaliation provisions did not cover oral complaints. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court, in finding that the sole question presented on on appeal is "whether an oral complaint of a violation of the Fair Labors Standards Act is protected conduct under the [Act's] anti-retaliation provision", concluded that it is. The Court examined a number of factors to determine if "filed" includes oral notification, including dictionary definitions, legislative history of both the FLSA and other Acts that contain antiretaliation provisions, administrative law history and case law. As the Court noted, when the Act was passed, Franklin Roosevelt pointed out that at the time, the workers who were in most need of the Act's help were those who were illiterate, less educated or overworked, and would find it difficult to reduce complaints to writing. Both the Department of Labor and EEOC hold the view that complaints can be filed orally. Finally, the Court noted that requiring written notice would prevent Governmental agencies (and employers) from using hotlines, interviews and other oral methods to receive complaints.
Practice pointer. FLSA cases continue to be one of the most commonly filed lawsuits in Alabama. As with other employment related cases, the retaliation claims that often accompany them are just as dangerous, if not more dangerous to employers then the underlying claims themselves. Employers must take seriously and investigate both oral and written complaints concerning possible violations of the FLSA . Those making the complaints, orally or in writing, are protected by the antiretaliation provisions of the Act.
Make sure you’ve read our disclaimer prior to commenting.