Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24624, 19 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1665, 703 F.3d 966 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee can establish a genuine dispute of material fact regarding causation for an FLSA retaliation claim under the direct method of proof by presenting circumstantial evidence, such as suspicious timing, ambiguous statements or behaviors, and pretextual reasons for the adverse employment action.
Facts:
- Kevin Kasten worked for Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation as an hourly manufacturing employee from October 2003 to December 2006, where he was required to punch time clocks.
- Saint-Gobain had a "Corrective Action Program" providing for discipline, including termination, for employees who failed to punch in and out correctly.
- Between February and November 2006, Saint-Gobain issued Kasten three disciplinary warnings and a one-day suspension for missed time clock punches.
- Between September and December 2006, Kasten repeatedly told his supervisors that he believed the time clock location was "illegal," caused him to miss punches, and that he was considering a lawsuit regarding it.
- During this period, Saint-Gobain's management internally discussed the legality of the time clock placement and the need to move them to comply with wage and hour laws.
- On December 9, 2006, Kasten called a supervisor asking about class action lawsuits related to time clock punches.
- On December 11, 2006, Saint-Gobain terminated Kasten's employment, and on the same day, moved the time clocks closer to the donning and doffing area.
- After Kasten's termination, Saint-Gobain provided inconsistent reasons for his discharge to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, first citing the Attendance Policy, then later the Corrective Action Program.
Procedural Posture:
- On December 5, 2007, Kevin Kasten filed a civil action against Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (trial court/court of first instance), alleging unlawful retaliation under the FLSA.
- On June 18, 2008, the District Court granted Saint-Gobain's motion for summary judgment, concluding that oral complaints were not protected activity under the FLSA.
- Kasten appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (intermediate appellate court), which affirmed the District Court's decision.
- The U.S. Supreme Court (highest court) granted certiorari, vacated the Seventh Circuit's decision, and remanded the case, holding that oral complaints can be protected activity under the FLSA if they provide "fair notice" to the employer.
- On remand, the District Court (trial court/court of first instance) determined that Kasten's complaints provided "fair notice" and constituted protected activity, but granted summary judgment in Saint-Gobain's favor on March 6, 2012, finding Kasten had failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact regarding causation.
- Kasten filed a timely notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee present sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the causal link between protected oral complaints and an adverse employment action, thereby defeating a motion for summary judgment in an FLSA retaliation claim, when relying on circumstantial evidence like suspicious timing, ambiguous statements, and pretextual reasons for termination?
Opinions:
Majority - flaum, Circuit Judge
Yes, an employee can present sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the causal link between protected oral complaints and an adverse employment action, thereby defeating a motion for summary judgment in an FLSA retaliation claim, when relying on circumstantial evidence like suspicious timing, ambiguous statements, and pretextual reasons for termination. The court reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing all facts and inferences in Kasten’s favor. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the direct method, Kasten needed to show (1) protected expression, (2) an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal link. While the Supreme Court had previously established that Kasten's oral complaints could constitute protected activity if they provided "fair notice," the central issue on remand was causation. The court found Kasten presented sufficient circumstantial evidence for a jury to infer retaliation. This included: (1) suspicious timing, as Kasten was terminated hours after management allegedly received an email detailing his inquiry about class action lawsuits regarding time clocks, and the time clocks were moved the same day, coupled with allegations of increased discipline severity after his complaints. The court noted that close temporal proximity between protected activity and adverse action, when the employer knows of the protected conduct, often satisfies causation, citing Lalvani v. Cook County, Ill. (2) Ambiguous statements and behaviors, such as Kasten’s supervisor allegedly telling him to "just lay down and tell them what they want to hear, [they] can probably save your job" before a suspension meeting, which a jury could interpret as a warning against his complaints. The immediate movement of time clocks on the day of termination was also considered suspicious behavior. The court reiterated that summary judgment is improper where conflicting indications of motive and intent need to be weighed, citing Stumph v. Thomas & Skinner, Inc. (3) Pretextual reasons for discharge, as Saint-Gobain initially told the Wisconsin Equal Rights Division Kasten was terminated under the Attendance Policy, but later shifted to the Corrective Action Program after Kasten pointed out inconsistencies. The court found this "inconsistency is suggestive of pretext," citing Simple v. Walgreen Co., reinforcing other evidence of retaliatory motive. The court also affirmed the district court's finding on remand that Kasten's oral complaints provided "fair notice" to Saint-Gobain, crediting Kasten's repeated statements about the clock location being "illegal" and discussing a lawsuit, especially given Saint-Gobain's internal discussions about FLSA compliance regarding time clocks.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the evidentiary burden for establishing causation in FLSA retaliation claims, particularly when direct evidence of retaliatory motive is absent. It reinforces that a combination of various types of circumstantial evidence—including suspicious temporal proximity, ambiguous employer statements or behaviors, and shifting or pretextual reasons for adverse employment actions—can collectively create a triable issue of fact, thereby precluding summary judgment. The decision emphasizes the crucial role of the jury in weighing conflicting evidence of an employer's motive and intent, strengthening protections for employees who raise concerns about wage and hour violations. It underscores that employers must be consistent and transparent in their disciplinary actions, especially following employee complaints, to avoid an inference of pretext.
