An Employer's Retaliation For An Employee's Wholly Verbal Complaints Is Not Actionable Under The Fair Labor Standards Act
KASTEN v. SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTIC CORP. (June 29, 2009)
.jpg)
Kevin Kasten worked at one of Saint-Gobain's facilities in Wisconsin. In 2006, Kasten received three warnings regarding his use of the on-site time clock. The third warning included a statement that it was the last step of the disciplinary process and that another violation could result in further discipline, up to termination. Kasten alleges, and Saint-Gobain denies, that he verbally complained about the legality of the time clock’s location about the same time he received the third warning. He alleges that his complaints consisted of a) telling his supervisor, b) telling a human resources representative, c) telling a lead operator and d) telling the lead operator he was considering a lawsuit. Saint-Gobain suspended Kasten after his fourth violation and later terminated his employment. Kasten alleges, and Saint-Gobain denies, that he also complained about the legality of the clock’s placement at a meeting regarding his suspension. Kasten brought an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging that he was terminated in retaliation for his complaints. The court granted summary judgment to Saint-Gobain. Kasten appeals.
In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum and Kapala affirmed. Kasten alleges that Saint-Gobain violated the FLSA when it terminated him after he "filed any complaint." The Court focused on two issues: whether the FLSA's use of the term "complaint" includes informal, intra-company complaints not formally filed with any body and whether it includes wholly verbal complaints. The district court had answered the first question yes but the second question no. With respect to the intra-company complaint issue, the Court relied on the plain language of the statute and the majority of other appellate courts to conclude that "any complaint" includes internal complaints. If then decided, however, that purely verbal complaints are not protected. The Court relied again on the plain language of the statute and the use of the word "file," which connotes the use of a writing, and the fact that Congress used broader language (i.e., “opposed any practice”) in analogous provisions of other statutes.
Michael Rigney practices in the law offices of GVC Ltd. in Chicago. In this blog, he reports on select