Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.
179 L. Ed. 2d 379, 563 U.S. 1, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 2417 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which protects employees who have 'filed any complaint,' encompasses oral as well as written complaints, provided such complaints are sufficiently clear and detailed to give a reasonable employer fair notice of an assertion of statutory rights.
Facts:
- Kevin Kasten was employed by Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation.
- Saint-Gobain placed its timeclocks in a location that prevented Kasten and other workers from receiving credit for time spent putting on and taking off required protective gear, which Kasten believed violated the FLSA.
- Kasten repeatedly called the unlawful timeclock location to Saint-Gobain officials' attention, following the company's internal grievance-resolution procedure.
- Kasten informed his shift supervisor that the timeclock location was illegal because it excluded donning and doffing time.
- Kasten told a human resources employee that Saint-Gobain would 'lose' in court if challenged on the timeclock location.
- Kasten told his lead operator that the location was illegal and that he 'was thinking about starting a lawsuit' about it.
- Kasten communicated to the human resources manager and operations manager that he thought the location was illegal and the company would 'lose' in court.
- Saint-Gobain disciplined Kasten and subsequently dismissed him in December 2006, claiming it was for failure to record his comings and goings on the timeclock.
Procedural Posture:
- Kevin Kasten sued Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Saint-Gobain, ruling that the FLSA's anti-retaliation provision did not cover oral complaints.
- Kasten appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, agreeing that the Act's anti-retaliation provision does not cover oral complaints.
- Kasten filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted due to a conflict among the Circuits on the interpretation of 'filed any complaint'.
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 the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which prohibits discrimination against an employee who has 'filed any complaint,' protect oral complaints made to an employer?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
Yes, the statutory term 'filed any complaint' in the FLSA's antiretaliation provision includes oral as well as written complaints. The Court found that the word 'filed' itself is open to competing interpretations, as some dictionary definitions and uses in state statutes, federal regulations, and contemporaneous judicial opinions permitted 'filing' oral statements. Considering the phrase 'any complaint' further suggests a broad interpretation, making the text alone ambiguous. The Court then turned to the purpose and context of the statute, which indicated that limiting protection to written complaints would undermine the Act's basic objectives. The FLSA relies on employee complaints for enforcement, particularly from vulnerable workers who may be illiterate, less educated, or overworked, and might find it difficult to reduce complaints to writing. Such a limitation would also hinder government agencies from using oral methods of receiving complaints (e.g., hotlines) and discourage desirable informal workplace grievance procedures. The Court emphasized the Act's 'remedial and humanitarian purpose' against 'narrow, grudging' interpretations. To ensure fairness to employers, the Court acknowledged the need for fair notice, stating that a complaint is 'filed' when 'a reasonable, objective person would have understood the employee' to have 'put the employer on notice that [the] employee is asserting statutory rights under the [Act].' This standard requires a complaint to be '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,' which can be met by oral complaints. Additionally, the Court gave weight to the consistent view of the Secretary of Labor and the EEOC that the provision covers oral complaints, finding these agency views reasonable and persuasive. The Court declined to apply the rule of lenity, finding the statute not sufficiently ambiguous after traditional interpretation, and also declined to address whether the provision applies to complaints made to private employers versus the government, as that question was not properly before the Court.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No, the FLSA's anti-retaliation provision does not cover complaints made to the employer at all, whether oral or written. Justice Scalia argued that the plain meaning of 'filed any complaint' and its context makes clear it contemplates an official grievance filed with a court or an agency, not an employee's internal complaint to an employer. He asserted that in a legal context, 'complaint' bears a specialized meaning of a formal allegation to a proper court or officer, and every other use of 'complaint' in the FLSA refers to an official filing with a governmental body. The word 'filed,' he contended, suggests a degree of formality consistent with legal action, not employee-to-employer complaints, and its use alongside other activities involving governmental authority (instituting proceedings, testifying, serving on an industry committee) reinforces this interpretation. Justice Scalia further noted that the 1938 version of the FLSA did not create a private right of action for retaliation, with only the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division enforcing the provision, implying that protected complaints would be filed with the Administrator. He criticized the majority for relying on 'abstractions of congressional purpose,' arguing that Congress may have intentionally limited the provision to avoid exposing employers to excessive litigation or difficulty dismissing workers. He also rejected the use of modern statutes to interpret the 1938 Act, stating that 'What Congress enacted in 1938 must be applied according to its terms, and not according to what a modern Congress (or this Court) would deem desirable.' Lastly, he found that deference to the Department of Labor and EEOC interpretations was unwarranted because the statute was clear, and even if ambiguous, these agencies lacked specific authority to issue regulations for § 215(a)(3), making their views lack the 'power to persuade.' Justice Scalia also argued that the Court should have addressed whether internal complaints are covered, as the majority's new 'fair notice' test implicitly assumes they are, which he found 'utterly atextual' and unnecessary if internal complaints were excluded.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens employee protections under the FLSA by extending anti-retaliation coverage to oral complaints made directly to employers. It empowers vulnerable workers, such as those with limited literacy or education, to report wage and hour violations without fear of reprisal, promoting better compliance with the Act. The 'fair notice' standard established by the Court requires employers to take all sufficiently clear and detailed oral complaints seriously, shifting the burden to employers to discern an assertion of statutory rights from 'letting off steam.' This decision encourages internal reporting and may lead to a decrease in formal litigation as employers have a greater incentive to resolve issues internally once an oral complaint provides sufficient notice.
