LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.,
570 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. Wis. 2009), cert.
U.S. LEXIS 2654 (U.S. Mar. 22, 2010) the U.S. Supreme Court, after granting
the employee's writ of certiorari, is now left to decide whether an oral
complaint of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) violation is protected conduct
under the anti-retaliation provision, 29
USCS § 215(a)(3). In this Analysis, Danyelle Wright explores Kasten and the issues presented. She
An employee orally complained to his employer about the legality of the
location of time clocks, claiming that the location prevented employees from
being paid for time spent donning and doffing their required protective gear.
The employee is then terminated for violating the company's time clock
policies. Shortly thereafter, the employee files a Fair Labor Standards Act
complaint against the employer alleging that he was terminated in retaliation
for his oral complaints regarding the locations of the time clocks. The case
eventually makes its way to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which
holds that the employee's oral complaints are not protected by the FLSA. The
U.S. Supreme Court, after granting the employee's Writ of certiorari, is now
left to decide whether an oral complaint of a violation of the FLSA is
protected conduct under the anti-retaliation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3).
The key issue for the Supreme Court to determine is whether the provision's
term "to file" requires an employee to file a written complaint, as opposed to the
employee simply making an oral complaint to his or her employer.
. . . .
F. KASTEN'S ARGUMENTS.
Kasten argues that the Seventh Circuit's interpretation of the FLSA
anti-retaliation provision is incorrect and that certiorari is warranted for
three reasons. First, Kasten argues that the Seventh Circuit's decision
conflicts with the decisions of six other Courts of Appeals. Kasten points out
that employees in the Seventh Circuit will receive protection under the FLSA
only if they file written complaints, while employees in the Sixth, Eighth,
Eleventh, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits receive protection when they issue
oral or written complaints. The effect of such a discrepancy among the
circuits, Kasten argues, is unworkable and would lead to confusion and legal
nightmares for national corporations.
Second, Kasten argues that the Seventh Circuit's decision eviscerates
the FLSA's protection for workers who bring violations of the statute or the
Equal Pay Act to their employers attention. Specifically, Kasten opines that a
"decision . . . that internal complaints that are oral are not covered . . .
would have an adverse impact upon the administration of the Department of
Labor's programs" and that "employees who wish to resolve an issue informally
with their employers will think twice before doing so if they are aware of the
potential consequences in the Seventh Circuit. In short, Kasten argues that the
Seventh Circuit's decision will have a chilling effect on protecting workers
under the FLSA, as well as the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Railway
Labor Act, the Surface Transportation Act, the Migrant and Seasonal Agriculture
Act, and the Employee Polygraph Protection Act. He argues that oral complaints
under these statutes may no longer receive protection against retaliation in
the Seventh Circuit if the decision stands.
Access the full version of Wright on Kasten v. Saint-Gobain
Performance Plastics Corp. with your lexis.com ID. Additional fees may be
incurred. (approx. 12 pages)
If you do not have a lexis.com ID, you can purchase the
Emerging Issues Analysis content through our lexisONE Research Packages