Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Dunlop v. Carriage Carpet Co.

Dunlop v. Carriage Carpet Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

October 5, 1976, Cause Argued ; January 5, 1977, Decided

No. 75-2309

Opinion

 [*140]  PHILLIPS, Chief Judge.

The issue presented by this appeal regarding the coverage of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. appears to be a question of first impression. The District Court held that a "former employee", voluntarily separated from his employer, is not an "employee" protected by the anti-discrimination provisions of § 15(a)(3) 1 of the Act. We disagree  [*141]  with the District Court's narrow reading of the Act and reverse the summary judgment granted to defendant.

 [**2]  I.

On October 8, 1973, David Bellian applied to the Midland-Ross Corporation in Cleveland, Ohio, for employment as a security guard. Bellian was interviewed by the firm's personnel manager and by the captain of the guards. He was informed that his application was "promising" and was asked by the captain of the guards whether he could start on October 15.

Before October 15, Bellian was called back to Midland-Ross for a second interview. At this second interview a different personnel manager told Bellian that Carriage Carpet Company (Carriage), a former employer of Bellian, had informed Midland-Ross that Bellian, while working for Carriage, had agreed to do some work at straight-time rates, but thereafter had filed a complaint against Carriage with the Department of Labor for not paying overtime rates. Bellian attempted to explain to the Midland-Ross representative that Carriage had misrepresented the facts of the incident and the Labor Department charge. The Midland-Ross personnel manager expressed sympathy with Bellian's predicament, but told Bellian that Midland-Ross would not hire him. The personnel manager suggested that Bellian contact the Department of Labor because [**3]  the information from Carriage would affect Bellian's chances of getting employment elsewhere.

Bellian contacted the Department of Labor and on August 8, 1974, the Secretary filed the present action against Carriage under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., alleging in part:

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

548 F.2d 139 *; 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 10677 **; 13 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P11,387

JOHN T. DUNLOP, Secretary of Labor, Appellant, v. CARRIAGE CARPET COMPANY, Appellee

Prior History:  [**1]   APPEAL from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.

CORE TERMS

Fair Labor Standards Act, former employee, employees, retaliation, coverage, includes, purposes, terms, social security, definitions, cases

Labor & Employment Law, Wage & Hour Laws, Scope & Definitions, General Overview, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation