A fired medical technologist for a laboratory in Virginia can
proceed with a Fair Labor Standards Act retaliation claim because she
sufficiently alleged that her internal oral complaint to a company
official about alleged FLSA violations constituted protected activity,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
ruled
Jan. 27 in an issue of first impression for the circuit (Minor v.
Bostwick Labs. Inc.,
4th Cir.,
No. 10-1258,
1/27/12).
In August 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia dismissed Kathy P. Minor's claim against Bostwick
Laboratories Inc., finding that the FLSA's anti-retaliation provision
at 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) does not apply to internal, or
intracompany, complaints.
Reversing and remanding, the Fourth Circuit joined the majority of
circuit courts that have held that an intracompany complaint to
management may constitute protected activity for Section 215(a)(3)
purposes so long as it is “sufficiently clear and detailed for a
reasonable employer to understand it, in light of both content and
context, as an assertion of rights protected by the statute and a call
for their protection.”
Such an interpretation, the court said, comports with the FLSA's
objectives of ensuring the maintenance of “certain minimum labor
standards” and protecting workers who may fear retaliation for
invoking their rights.
In so ruling, the Fourth Circuit relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's
reasoning in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.
(
131 S. Ct. 1325, 17 WH Cases 2d 577 (2011); 29 HRR 313, 3/28/11), as
well as Labor Department and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
positions on the protected activity
issue.
Technologist Complained to Company COO.
According to the court, Minor began working for Bostwick in
December 2007. She claimed she received satisfactory to above average
job performance ratings.
On May 6, 2008, Minor and several co-workers met with Bostwick
Chief Operating Officer Bill Miller to discuss concerns about
supervisor Dawn Webber. Minor told Miller that she believed Webber was
violating the FLSA by removing overtime hours from employee time
sheets. Miller allegedly told the employees he would investigate their
allegations.
Bostwick fired Minor on May 12, citing conflict between Minor and
her supervisor. Minor brought an FLSA retaliation claim against the
company in June 2009.
The district court granted Bostwick's motion to dismiss upon
finding that an employee's internal complaint about possible FLSA
violations does not constitute protected activity under the statute.
The court read the plain language of Section 215(a)(3) as requiring a
formal, official proceeding before the FLSA's anti-retaliation
protections can be invoked.
Reversing and remanding on appeal, the Fourth Circuit held that an
employee's internal complaint to management may be protected activity
under the FLSA. The First, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth
and Eleventh circuits have reached the same conclusion.
The court observed that the Supreme Court 6-2 ruled in
Kasten that the FLSA's anti-retaliation provision covers an
employee's oral complaint to his or her employer, but expressly
declined to resolve whether the statute covers an internal complaint
to a private employer.
However, the Fourth Circuit said the majority's reasoning in
Kasten is applicable to its analysis in the instant
case.
Court Looks to FLSA's Remedial Purpose.
In light of Section 215(a)(3)'s ambiguous statutory language, the
Fourth Circuit, like the majority in Kasten, looked to the
FLSA's remedial purpose to conclude that intracompany complaints can
qualify as protected activity.
The FLSA “was enacted to combat 'labor conditions detrimental
to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for
health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers,' ”
the court said. It added that the Supreme Court has
“consistently held that the FLSA 'must not be interpreted or
applied in a narrow, grudging manner.' ”
Indeed, the court said the justices in Kasten pointed out
that “insofar as the [FLSA's] antiretaliation provision covers
complaints made to employers,” limitations on Section
215(a)(3)'s scope potentially could “discourage the use of
desirable informal workplace grievance procedures to secure complaints
with the [FLSA],” thus undermining the statute's objectives.
“Following this reasoning, we conclude that an interpretation
that limits [Section] 215(a)(3)'s coverage to complaints made before
an administrative or judicial body would overly circumscribe the reach
of the antiretaliation provision in contravention of the FLSA's
remedial purpose,” the Fourth Circuit
said.
Fourth Circuit Ruling Doesn't Go to Merits.
The Fourth Circuit said Minor's FLSA retaliation claim survives
Bostwick's motion to dismiss because Minor adequately alleged that her
complaint to COO Miller was “sufficiently clear and
detailed” for the company to understand it as an assertion of
her FLSA rights.
The Fourth Circuit cautioned, however, that it expresses no view
regarding the merits of Minor's FLSA retaliation claim. “We
simply hold that, on the facts alleged, her complaint survives a
motion to dismiss,” the court said.
By Jay-Anne B.
Casuga