Wage & Hour Counsel : Wage & Hour Lawyer & Attorney : Littler Mendelson Law Firm : Employment Law, Labor Relations

The Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division has issued three new fact sheets on unlawful retaliation. One fact sheet discusses retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA makes it a violation for any person to “discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this Act, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an industry committee.” To learn more about the FLSA fact sheet and its implications for employers, please continue reading at Littler's Washington D.C. Employment Law Update.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Martha Keon

In Dellinger v. Science Applications Internal Corporation, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of an applicant’s FLSA retaliation claim, holding that only current or former employees can sue for retaliation under the FLSA and that an applicant is not an employee.

Natalie Dellinger was offered a job with Science Applications International Corporation (“SAIC”), contingent on the transfer of her security clearance, among other things. Dellinger accepted the offer and filled out a form to transfer her security clearance. The form required her to disclose any non-criminal court actions to which she was a party, and she disclosed a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) lawsuit that she had filed against her former employer. Shortly thereafter, SAIC withdrew its contingent offer of employment.

Dellinger sued SAIC, claiming that the withdrawal of the offer violated the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision. SAIC moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision only protects employees, and not applicants. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia agreed and dismissed the case. Dellinger appealed, with the Secretary of Labor filing an amicus brief supporting her arguments.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Martha Keon

The FLSA provides that an employer may not:

discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to [the Act], or has testified or is about to testify in such proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an industry committee.

The meaning of the phrase “filed any complaint” has been vigorously disputed in the federal courts, resulting in circuit splits on two issues:

1. Does “filed any complaint” protect only complaints to the government or does it also include internal complaints to the employer? The majority view held by the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits is that internal complaints to an employer are protected, while the minority view held by the Second and Fourth Circuits is that only complaints to government authorities are protected.
2. Does “filed any complaint” mean that the complaint has to be in writing or are unwritten, oral complaints also protected? Following the same general pattern, the Second, Fourth and Seventh Circuits have held that unwritten, oral complaints are not protected, while the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have protected unwritten, oral complaints.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

New York law has long prohibited employers from paying workers less than the minimum wage or failing to pay proper overtime. This newly enacted piece of legislation, the Wage Theft Prevention Act, now adds strict new penalties for failure to comply with minimum wage and overtime laws. The new law also amends current wage notification requirements for employers.

Under the Wage Theft Prevention Act, in the event of a wage payment violation, an employer may be liable for up to twice the amount that was due as wages as well as other penalties and legal fees. The law also prohibits retaliation against employees who exercise their rights under the statute.

Additionally, the new law requires notifications to be provided to employees in their native language at the time of hire and on or before each February 1st. Previously the law required such a notification to include the rate of pay and regular paydays. The new law adds several additional requirements to the contents of the notification, including more detail on the basis of pay (i.e., whether the employee is paid on a salary, hourly, piece or commission basis, etc.) and information regarding the employer, such as its address and phone number. There are also new detailed requirements concerning the acknowledgment of the required notification, and a new records retention requirement of 6 years.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 13, 2010, Governor Rendell signed into law the Construction Workplace Misclassification Act. The Act curtails the circumstances under which a construction worker may be classified as an independent contractor for purposes of workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance.

Under the Act, to be classified as an independent contractor, a construction worker must meet three criteria: (1) have a written contract to perform services; (2) be free from the hiring party’s control or direction when performing such services; and (3) be customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provides that it is unlawful "to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint ... under or related to this Act." 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3). The question before the U.S. Supreme Court today in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 570 F.3d 834 (7th Cir.), reh’g denied, 585 F.3d 310 (7th Cir. 2009), cert. granted, 130 S.Ct. 1890 (2010), was whether “filed any complaint” includes making an internal oral complaint.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On August 31, 2010, just in time for Labor Day, New York Governor David Paterson signed into law the “Domestic Workers Bill of Rights” (“Bill of Rights”), which grants certain employment protections to household domestic workers such as nannies, caregivers and housekeepers. The Bill of Rights, which takes effect on November 29, 2010, is the first of its kind in the nation and amends New York Labor Law, in addition to other statutes, to entitle domestic workers to receive overtime pay, one day of rest per week or overtime pay when they work on their day of rest, and three days of paid time off after one year of employment. To learn more about the law and its implications for employers, please continue reading Littler's ASAP, "New York Enacts Bill of Rights for Domestic Workers," by Stephen A. Fuchs.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics (7th Cir. 2009), in which that court held that an oral complaint of a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is not considered protected conduct under the Act’s anti-retaliation provision. Continue reading about this development at Littler's D.C. Employment Law Update blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Barbosa v. IMPCO Technologies, Inc., the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District held that terminating an employee for exercising his statutory right to overtime wages out of a reasonable, good faith belief of entitlement to it, (notwithstanding the subsequent discovery that he was wrong), was contrary to California public policy.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the case of Kasten v. Saint Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently considered the question of whether verbal complaints may constitute protected activity under the FLSA. In this case, the plaintiff alleged that he verbally complained to his supervisors and the company’s human resources department about the legality of the location of the company’s time clocks. The plaintiff alleged that he told two supervisors and a human resources employee that the placement of the clocks was illegal because it prevented employees from being paid for time spent donning and doffing required protective gear.

The Seventh Circuit first affirmed the district court’s conclusion that internal, intra-company complaints may be protected activity for purposes of the anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA. The Court then turned to the question of whether verbal, intra-company complaints may be protected activity.

The Seventh Circuit held that because the FLSA prevents employees from being retaliated against for filing complaints, the statute could not be interpreted as intending to protect unwritten complaints. The court viewed the “natural understanding” of the phrase “file any complaint” to connote the use of a writing. Therefore, to constitute protected activity under the FLSA, the “complaint” must involve the submission of a writing to an employer, court, or administrative body. Notably, other courts have reached a different conclusion.

This blog entry was authored by Theresa Waugh.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link