In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, holding that oral complaints constitute protected conduct under the antiretaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA).  Kevin Kasten brought this lawsuit against his former employer, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., alleging it located its timeclocks between the area where Kasten and other workers donned (and doffed) work-related protective gear and the area where they carry out their assigned tasks.  He further alleges that Saint-Gobain fired him because he orally complained to management about the location of the timeclocks.  The sole question before the court was whether “filed any complaint” also includes oral complaints.  Holding that it does, Justice Breyer wrote:

Filings may more often be made in writing.  See, e.g., Ritter v. United States, 28 F. 2d 265, 267 (CA3 1928) (finding words “file a claim for refund” to require a written request in context of tax code).  But we are interested in the filing of “any complaint.” So even if the word “filed,” considered alone, might suggest a narrow interpretation limited to writings, the phrase “any complaint” suggests a broad interpretation that would include an oral complaint.  See, e.g., Republic of Iraq v. Beaty, 556 U.S. , (2009) (slip op. at 7).  The upshot is that the three-word phrase, taken by itself, cannot answer the interpretive question.

…

Several functional considerations indicate that Congress intended the antiretaliation provision to cover oral, as well as written, “complaint[s].”  First, an interpretation that limited the provision’s coverage to written complaints would undermine the Act’s basic objectives.  The Act seeks to prohibit “labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers.” 29 U. S. C. §202(a).  It does so in part by setting forth substantive wage, hour, and overtime standards.  It relies for enforcement of these standards, not upon “continuing detailed federal supervision or inspection of payrolls,” but upon “information and complaints received from employees seeking to vindicate rights claimed to have been denied.” Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc., 361 U. S. 288, 292 (1960).  And its antiretaliation provision makes this enforcement scheme effective by preventing “fear of economic retaliation” from inducing workers “quietly to accept substandard conditions.” Ibid.

…

Second, given Congress’ delegation of enforcement powers to federal administrative agencies, we also give a degree of weight to their views about the meaning of this enforcement language. . . . The Secretary of Labor has consistently held the view that the words “filed any complaint” cover oral, as well as written, complaints.

The Court held in this 6-2 opinion (with Justices Scalia and Thomas dissenting and Kagan not taking part) that the FLSA prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who make oral, as well as written, complaints to their employer.  Had the Court ruled that only workers filing written complaints were protected, workers would be deterred from using informal methods to address violations of the law by their employer.  Instead, the opinion bolsters the level of protection afforded employees who report workplace violations of the FLSA.

On October 26, 2010, Nicholas Woodfield, Principal at The Employment Law Group® law firm, will lecture on the misclassification of employees as independent contractors at the D.C. Bar CLE entitled “Changing Currents in Employment Law 2010: Recent Trends and Developments.” The CLE will focus on the Fair Labor Standards Act, unpaid wage actions, trends in disability litigation under the recently amended Americans with Disabilities Act, new developments in Family and Medical Leave Act litigation, recent decisions on damages in employment law actions, the latest U.S. Supreme Court employment law decisions, and new whistleblower protection laws.  More information is available from the D.C. Bar here.

At the 11th Circuit’s sua sponte request, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) submitted an opinion that undocumented workers are entitled to bring claims for unpaid minimum wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). While the 11th Circuit’s query is troublesome, given that neither party had raised it before the court, and given that one of the leading circuit court decisions on the issue is from the 11th Circuit, it is heartening to read the DOL’s opinion:

The longstanding position of the [DOL] is that undocumented workers are entitled to minimum wages and overtime pay for hours worked under the FLSA. This Court has unequivocally sustained that position. See Patel v. Quality Inn S., 846 F.2d 700,703-06 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1011 (1989). The Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002), did not disturb that holding…

For more information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Wage and Hour Practice, click here.

On July 6, 2010, a three judge panel of the Second Circuit overturned a district court’s finding that pharmaceutical sales representatives fall into the outside sales and administrative employee exemptions to the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The opinion narrows the definition of a “sale” and refines what it means to exercise discretion and independent judgment.

According to the Second Circuit, “where the employee promotes a pharmaceutical product to a physician but can transfer to the physician nothing more than free samples and cannot lawfully transfer ownership of any quantity of the drug in exchange for anything of value, cannot lawfully take an order for its purchase, and cannot lawfully even obtain from the physician a binding commitment to prescribe it, we conclude that it is not plainly erroneous to conclude that the employee has not in any sense, within the meaning of the statute or regulations, made a sale.”  In comparison, the district court opined that while the plaintiffs may not “sell” in a technical sense, holding them exempt is within “the Act’s spirit, purpose, and goals.” 

Regarding the administrative exemption, the court noted the absence of any “evidence . . . that the Reps have any authority to formulate, affect, interpret, or implement Novartis’s management policies or its operating practices, or that they are involved in planning Novartis’s long-term or short-term business objectives, or that they carry out major assignments in conducting the operations of Novartis’s business, or that they have any authority to commit Novartis in matters that have significant financial impact.”  The court also discounted the importance of contracts made between the plaintiffs and hotels and convention centers, observing that all contracts are subject to predetermined budgets. 

The court relied heavily upon an amicus curiae brief filed by the Department of Labor in support of the approximately 2,500 plaintiffs in the case.  We blogged about the DOL’s brief here.  The case is In re Novartis Wage and Hour Litigation, and a copy of the court’s opinion is available here.

The employment attorneys at The Employment Law Group® law group have extensive experience recouping unpaid wages and fighting for employees who are misclassified as exempt from overtime.  To learn more about the firm’s Unpaid Wages and Overtime Practice, click here.

Judge Lynn Adelman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has granted conditional class certification in a suit against Cargill Meats alleging that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The suit seeks payment for time spent donning and doffing protective gear by production line employees paid using modified “gang time.”

Last month, Tyson Foods settled a donning and doffing suit for $500,000.  Information on the Tyson Foods settlement is available here.

The employment attorneys at The Employment Law Group® law firm have extensive experience recouping unpaid wages and fighting for employees who are misclassified as exempt from overtime.  To learn more about the firm’s Unpaid Wages and Overtime Practice, click here.

On June 1, 2010, the Department of Labor announced that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Sheriff’s Office in Phoenix, AZ agreed to pay $2,059,807 to 1,690 detention officers and sergeants for unpaid pre-shift meetings.  The meetings were daily and the amount awarded covers time worked from November 1, 2007 to March 4, 2009. 

The employment attorneys at The Employment Law Group® law firm have extensive experience recouping unpaid wages and fighting for employees who are misclassified as exempt from overtime.  To learn more about the firm’s Unpaid Wages and Overtime Practice, click here.

On June 16, 2010, the Department of Labor issued its second Administrator’s Interpretation of 2010, defining “clothes” under section 3(o) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C § 203(o).   Under this new Interpretation, “clothes” refers to apparel and not protective safety equipment generally worn over one’s clothes.  Employees required by law to don and off protective gear must be paid for the time spent doing so.  A copy of the Administrator’s Interpretation is available here.

The employment attorneys at The Employment Law Group® have extensive experience prosecuting claims for unpaid wages including individual claims and class actions.  To learn more about TELG’s Non Payment of Wages Practice, click here.

On June 3, 2010, the Department of Labor announced that Tyson Foods has agreed to pay employees for donning and doffing protective wear as well as time spent washing and sanitizing themselves and their gear.  Tyson Foods also agreed to compensate employees for the time spent walking and waiting that occurs throughout the workday.  In addition, Tyson Foods will pay $500,000 in overtime back wages to 3,000 employees at its Blountsville, Alabama plant. 

For more information about the Fair Labor Standards Act and The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Unpaid Overtime Practice, click here.

On March 26, 2010, Law360 reported on U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Judge Deborah Chasanow’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss in Randolph v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., which we discussed here.  The opinion answers a question of first impression in the Fourth Circuit, holding that the Fair Labor Standard Act’s anti-retaliation provision protects disclosures to state labor agencies made in good faith. 

In the article, Mr. Woodfield points out that “under FLSA if you have a good faith belief in your claim, you are protected.”  When reporting violations to a state agency, “you don’t have to be correct, but you have to have a reasonable belief.”  Mr. Woodfield, the plaintiffs’ attorney, is a Principal at The Employment Law Group® law firm.  For more information about Mr. Woodfield and the firm’s Unpaid Overtime Practice, click here.

On March 24, 2010, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Judge Deborah Chasanow denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss in Randolph v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc..  This case presented an important question of first impression for the Fourth Circuit, namely whether employees, who were compensated with commissions based on sales, could complain to a state wage and hour board and be protected under the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) even if they were not entitled to overtime if they held a reasonable, good faith belief that they had been misclassified as commissions based employees and that they had been inadequately compensated for overtime work performed for the defendant. 

Plaintiffs Sharon Randolph and Tami Thompson filed a complaint with the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (DLLR), claiming that ADT failed to pay them overtime.  Randolph and Thompson were paid in commission for sales, however they thought they should have been compensated on an hourly basis and that they were entitled to overtime.  After being notified of the complaint, ADT terminated Randolph and Thompson for violating company policy by disclosing confidential information to the DLLR.  After their termination, the plaintiffs filed the present suit asserting that ADT violated the FLSA’s prohibition against retaliation and that their termination was wrongful under the Maryland public policy exception to at-will employment, known as an Adler tort claim. 

Relying in part on the only U.S. court of appeals case to address the application of § 215(a)(3) to state law, Sapperstein v. Hager, 188 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 1999), Judge Chasanow sided with the plaintiffs and will allow the case to go to trial.  A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available here.

For more information about The Employment Law Group® law firm and its Employment Law Practice, click here.