Labor attorneys fought long and hard over whether or not Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) protects oral, as well as written, complaints in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. On March 22, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision; the Court held, in a 6-2 decision, that the anti-retaliation provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) protect oral, as well as written, complaints.
Labor attorneys had already won a suit against Saint-Gobain for placing time clocks in a location that did not allow workers the ability clock in prior to getting in and out of their gear, thus forcing them to work off the clock. Kasten filed an anti-retaliation suit against Saint-Gobain, alleging that Saint-Gobain terminated him for orally complaining about the location of the time clocks.
FLSA is probably better known for enforcing wage and hour issues such as overtime, working off the clock and reimbursable expenses, but it also forbids employers from terminating “any employee because such employee has filed any complaint alleging a violation of the statute.” The text of the FLSA was insufficient for the Court to interpret whether the term “filed” included oral complaints. Thus, the Court considered other factors, including:
- A wide interpretation of “filed” would be the same as the understanding of the National Labor Relations Act’s anti-retaliation provision
- A narrow interpretation would weaken the FLSA’s basic purpose – prohibiting detrimental labor conditions
- The EEOC and Secretary of Labor have both decided that “filed” includes both oral and written complaints.
- The FLSA’s requirement that an employer receive fair notice of a complaint can be met by oral and written complaints
California labor attorneys don’t commonly sue under FLSA because California’s Labor Code has its own anti-retaliation provision. California Labor Code section 1102.5:
(a) An employer may not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation.
(b) An employer may not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation.
(c) An employer may not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation.
(d) An employer may not retaliate against an employee for having exercised his or her rights under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) in any former employment.
Nevertheless, the FLSA applies to California employers as well. Thus, California labor attorneys can now rely on Kasten to protect California employees from retaliation for oral complaints about FLSA-protected rights.
If you feel you have been retaliated against after making a complaint at work, be it verbal or written, contact United Employees Law Group to examine you case.
Photo Credit: Shutterstock/Kurhan