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.

According to MarketWatch, the minimum wage is rising in the following seven states:

• Arizona – 10 cents to $7.35
• Colorado – 12 cents to $7.36
• Montana – 10 cents to $7.35
• Ohio – 10 cents to $7.40
• Oregon – 10 cents to $8.50
• Vermont – 9 cents to $8.15
• Washington – 12 cents to $8.67

17 states and Washington, D.C. will have minimum wages higher than the national minimum wage.  Generally, employers are prohibited from paying their nonexempt employees less than the national minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) or less than the minimum wage of their state under their state’s labor laws.  For more information about the FLSA and state labor laws, click here.

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.

According to Law360, the California Senate passed two bills, AB 1881 and AB 2771, attempting to crackdown on minimum wage violations in the underground economy.   AB 1881 would allow employees to recover twice the amount of unpaid minimum wages from their employer, and AB 2771 would criminalize employers’ failure to issue itemized wage statements to their employees.  Violating AB 2771 would be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1000 or up to one year in jail or both.  The bills now proceed to Governor Schwarzenegger’s desk. 

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

On July 26, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted restaurant workers’ motion that allows them to pursue a class action lawsuit against their employer, The Smith & Wollensky Restaurant Group Inc.  The restaurant workers allege that Smith & Wollensky, which owns the steakhouse chain with the same name, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Illinois wage law by illegally requiring workers to pool tips with nontipped employees and by failing to pay them required overtime and minimum wages.  Click here for the court’s full opinion.

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.

In a unanimous decision, the 9th circuit ruled in the case of Narayan v. EGL, Inc. that California law determines the classification of a worker employed in California even when the worker’s contract contains a choice-of-law provision.  Workers’ rights and benefits often vary depending on the worker’s classification as either an employee or an independent contractor.  The plaintiffs were truck drivers in California who signed an agreement with EGL, Inc. containing a choice-of-law provision.  The provision states that the truck drivers would be subject to the labor laws of Texas.  However, the 9th Circuit held that a choice-of-law provision does not determine which state’s law is used to classify a worker when that worker’s claim arises outside the contract.  In this case, the claim arises not from the contract itself, but from the California Labor Code which guarantees the following benefits for employees: overtime compensation, reimbursement for business expenses, and off-duty meal periods.  The court’s full opinion is 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 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.