Bloomberg Law for HR Professionals is a complete, one-stop resource, continuously updated, providing HR professionals with fast answers to a wide range of domestic and international human resources...
April 20 — A New York security guard didn't have to file a written complaint with a government agency as a predicate to bringing a Fair Labor Standards Act retaliation claim against his former employer, a split U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled April 20.
Vacating a lower court's denial of default damages to Darnell Greathouse on his FLSA retaliation claim against JHS Security Inc., the Second Circuit majority found that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 131 S. Ct. 1325, 17 WH Cases2d 577 (U.S. 2011), overturned the filing requirements the appeals court established in Lambert v. Genesee Hospital, 10 F.3d 46, 1 WH Cases2d 1124 (2d Cir. 1993).
The majority thus remanded Greathouse's case for further proceedings as to whether his informal oral complaint to JHS's president and part-owner, Melvin Wilcox, that he allegedly hadn't been paid in several months met all of Kasten's other requirements, namely that it was “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.”
Section 215(a)(3) of the FLSA prohibits “any person” from discriminating against an employee who “filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceedings under or related to this chapter.”
In Lambert, the Second Circuit said it construed the phrase “filed any complaint” to mean formal written complaints to a government agency.
However, the Supreme Court in Kasten held that Section 215(a)(3) also protects employees' oral complaints so long as they are sufficiently clear and detailed for an employer to understand that the workers are asserting their FLSA rights. But the justices expressly declined to resolve whether Section 215(a)(3) also protects intra-company oral complaints made to only supervisors.
The Second Circuit observed that Kasten, which involved a complaint lodged with an employer and not a government agency, “must be read as casting serious doubt” on the administrative filing requirement established in Lambert. It added that nine other federal appeals courts have held that Section 215(a)(3) protects employees from retaliation for complaints made to their employers.
As such, the court analyzed Section 215(a)(3)'s plain language and determined that “filed any complaint” doesn't require that a complaint be submitted “formally” to a government agency.
Given that the phrase further appears next to “instituted any proceeding,” the court said it may construe “filed any complaint” as “contemplat[ing] a communication (such as an intra-company complaint seeking a change in company practice) that does not ordinarily trigger a ‘proceeding' (such as an adjudicatory process).”
Additionally, the court found that the FLSA's statutory purpose to protect employees, as well as interpretations from the Labor Department and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, also support its definition of “filed any complaint.”
Partially dissenting, Judge Edward R. Korman argued that Kasten expressly left open the issue of whether an informal complaint, oral or written, made to a supervisor can be used to predicate an FLSA retaliation claim and didn't “adopt a broad rule that would cover the facts” of the present case, which was decided on default judgment.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jay-Anne Casuga in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Susan J. McGolrick at email@example.com.
Text of the opinion is available at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/DARNELL_GREATHOUSE_PlaintiffAppellant_v_JHS_SECURITY_INC_MELVIN_W.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)