May 25, 2012

U.S. Supreme Court Expands Anti-Retaliation Protections for Employees

The recent United States Supreme Court decision in Kasten v. St. Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. expanded employers’ potential liability for retaliation by clarifying that oral complaints to supervisors about wage and hour violations fall within the anti-retaliation provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). This decision is a reminder to employers to take all complaints seriously, regardless of how they are communicated to management.

The plaintiff in Kasten made several oral complaints to his supervisors that the location of time clocks in his workplace violated the FLSA. Specifically, he complained that the clocks’ locations prevented employees from punching in and out while they were putting on and taking off work clothes and protective equipment. The plaintiff even said he was thinking of filing a lawsuit about the issue. Shortly after he complained to his supervisors, Mr. Kasten was disciplined and then terminated.

Mr. Kasten sued his former employer for retaliation under the FLSA. The District Court granted summary judgment to the defendant company and dismissed the case, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the FLSA anti-retaliation provision protected only written complaints.

The Supreme Court reversed the earlier decisions, holding that the word “file” in the relevant statute could also mean the filing of oral complaints. Much of the courts analysis discussed various meanings of the word “file,” but the important message for employers is that oral complaints of wage and hour violations may give rise to retaliation claims. The Kasten decision brings the analysis of FLSA retaliation law in line with other federal employment statutes, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, that already clearly protect oral complaints.

The Kasten opinion did not resolve the question of how much an employee must say to put the employer on fair notice that he or she is making a protected complaint. Employers must be aware, however, that the courts read anti-retaliation protections broadly, and should fully investigate all employee complaints. In addition, an employer who takes any adverse employment actions  against employees who have complained should be able to articulate a legitimate reason for the action unrelated to the complaint in order to defend against a potential claim. It is also helpful to document the reason in the employee’s file.

© 2012 Poyner Spruill LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Associate

Kevin represents employers in many areas of labor and employment law, including race, age, gender, religion, national original, and disability employment discrimination claims, wrongful discharge claims, and wage and hour claims. He defends clients before administrative agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Labor, and the North Carolina Employment Security Commission, in state and federal courts, and in arbitrations. Kevin also provides guidance to management to ensure employment practices are in full compliance with all applicable statutes and...

919-783-2853

About the Author

Partner

David practices in the area of employment litigation.  He regularly advises and defends clients in race, age, disability and sex discrimination and harassment cases; reviews handbooks and termination issues; and provides compliance advice on matters of employment law.

Representative Experience

McNeil v. Scotland County - Obtained summary judgment for employer where plaintiff alleged race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as well as violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Successfully...

919-783-2854

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.