Supreme Court rules FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision covers oral complaints

In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that the provision in the Fair Labor Standards Act that prohibits retaliation against employees who “file” an FLSA complaint covers oral complaints made by employees.

Kevin Kasten worked for Saint Gobain Plastics Performance Corp. He complained to his supervisors, as well as to the company’s HR department, that the time clocks in the plant where he worked were located between where employees put on their work-related protective gear and where they were assigned to perform their work tasks, and therefore they did not get full credit for the time they spent putting on and taking off their work gear, contrary to the FLSA’s donning and doffing provisions. Kasten alleged that after raising this issue, the company terminated him, in violation of the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision.

The company argued that the anti-retaliation provision in the FLSA requires that, in order to “file” a complaint and thereby invoke the Act’s protections, the employee submit something in writing. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, holding that in this context, to file a complaint can include an oral complaint. The Court did take into consideration Saint Gobain’s argument that a complaint must provide the employer with fair notice that the employee is making a complaint that could subject it to a later claim of retaliation, clarifying that an oral complaint will be sufficient to invoke the FLSA’s protections only so long as the complaint 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.”

Saint Gobain also asked the Court to decide whether any employee complaint – oral or written – must be made to a government agency, or whether it can be also made to a private employer. The Court, however, declined to decide that issue because Saint Gobain did not raise it in its opening brief to the Court, and instead said that the issue would have to be addressed by lower courts. (In his dissent, Justice Scalia (joined by Justice Thomas) disagreed with the majority’s decision not to consider that issue, and explained that he agreed with Saint Gobain’s argument that any complaint must be made to a judicial or administrative body, and therefore a complaint made to a private employer does not trigger the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision.)

The case is Kasten v. Saint Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., No. 09-834.