• Qui Tam
  • SEC
  • CFTC
  • FCPA
  • Whistleblower Resources
  • FAQS
Subscribe
Donate
No Result
View All Result
Whistleblower Network News
The Truth at Any Cost.
Qui Tam, Compliance and Anti-Corruption News.
SIGN THE PETITION FOR NATIONAL WHISTLEBLOWER DAY IN 2023
Whistleblower Network News
  • Qui Tam
  • SEC
  • CFTC
  • FCPA
  • Whistleblower Resources
  • FAQS
Subscribe
Donate
No Result
View All Result
Whistleblower Network News
No Result
View All Result
Home Corporate

Supreme Court says internal oral complaints are “filed”

WNN StaffbyWNN Staff
March 22, 2011
in Corporate, News
Reading Time: 5 mins read
Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInEmail

Jim KasterToday the Supreme Court held that workers who make oral complaints about wage and hour violations are protected from retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court says that oral complaints are "filed" and that workers who make them have "filed any complaint" in the parlance of the 1938 statute. The decision reverses a narrow holding by the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, and allows Kevin Kasten to go to trial against his former employer, Saint Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation. I reported here earlier about the dynamic oral argument presented by Kasten’s attorney, my friend Jim Kaster of Minneapolis, Minnesota (pictured). That blog post reviews the facts of what Kasten did to complain and how he got fired. The case is Kasten v. Saint Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, No. 09-834 (March 22, 2011).

At pages 8-9 of the slip opinion, the Court initially notes that, "an interpretation that limited the provision’s coverage to written complaints would undermine the Act’s basic objectives." The Court explained that the FLSA does not rely on “continuing detailed federal supervision or inspection of payrolls,” but on “information and complaints received from employees seeking to vindicate rights claimed to have been denied.” Quoting Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc., 361 U. S. 288, 292 (1960). The FLSA’s antiretaliation provision makes this enforcement scheme effective by preventing “fear of economic retaliation” from inducing workers “quietly to accept substandard conditions.” The Mitchell case was the first one Kaster cited in his oral argument, page 3. In the majority opinion, Justice Breyer noted that in 1938 many workers were illiterate, especially the low wage workers that Congress sought to help with the FLSA. Justice Breyer (p. 9) was also mindful of the multiple effects that would arise if oral complaints had no protection:

To limit the scope of the antiretaliation provision to the filing of written complaints would also take needed flexibility from those charged with the Act’s enforcement. It could prevent Government agencies from using hotlines, interviews, and other oral methods of receiving complaints. And insofar as the antiretaliation provision covers complaints made to employers (a matter we need not decide, see infra, at 14–15), it would discourage the use of desirable informal workplace grievance procedures to secure compliance with the Act. Cf. Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U. S. 742, 764 (1998) (reading Title VII to encourage the development of effective grievance procedures to deter misconduct); D. McPherson, C. Gates, & K.Rogers, Resolving Grievances: A Practical Approach 38–40 (1983) (describing the significant benefits of unwritten complaints).

Support Whistleblower Network News

This paragraph should be particularly helpful to advocates seeking protection for internal complaints.

The Kasten decision will also be helpful in expanding the scope of participation clause protection. This is the protection workers have when the file official complaints, provide information for official proceedings, testify as a witness, or participate in other ways. Justice Breyer’s opinion notes that

this Court has broadly interpreted the language of the NLRA’s antiretaliation provision—“ filed charges or given testimony,” 29 U. S. C.§158(a)(4)—as protecting workers who neither filed charges nor were “called formally to testify” but simply “participate[d] in a [National Labor Relations] Board investigation.” NLRB v. Scrivener, 405 U. S. 117, 123 (1972) (emphasis added).

The Court also cited Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 321 U. S. 590, 597 (1944) for the idea that an act’s “remedial and humanitarian . . . purpose” cautions against “narrow, grudging” interpretations of its language.

The majority opinion goes on to reference the position of federal agencies that enforce antiretaliation provisions. Both the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) expressed their policy of encouraging and protecting oral complaints.  Indeed, DOL accepts oral complaints through its Toll-Free Wage and Hour Help Line at 1–866–4–US–WAGE. The Court even cited DOL’s web page. "These agency views are reasonable. They are consistent with the Act," the Supreme Court says at p. 13.

This decision continues the Supreme Court’s recent string of holdings in favor of workers challenging retaliation. Just this year, the Court recognized protection for a whistleblower’s family members who engaged in no protected activity.  In three earlier cases, the Supreme Court held that workers were protection from retaliation for helping to enforce laws that had no antiretaliation provision at all.  Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, 544 U.S. 167 (2005) (Title IX); CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442, 128 S. Ct. 1951 (2008) (42 U.S.C. § 1981); Gomez-Perez v. Potter, 553 U.S. 474 (2008) (ADEA). It should not be a stretch, then, for the Court to find that workers are protected from retaliation under laws that prohibit such retaliation, even if the employer could argue that the literal wording might not cover them. It is my hope that the courts will come to see antiretaliation as a unified body of law that is interpreted consistently to promote the public purposes and avoid relitigation of issues for each statute.

You can read the fine amicus brief in the Kasten case, or follow this link to the other briefs. Congratulations to Kevin Kasten and his attorney, Jim Kaster, for this outstanding result.

Tags: Corporate WhistleblowersSupreme Court
Previous Post

Bill targets intelligence whistleblowers

Next Post

Rewards for whistleblowers examined

WNN Staff

WNN Staff

Next Post

Rewards for whistleblowers examined

Please login to join discussion

Receive Daily Alerts

Subscribe to receive daily breaking news and legislative developments sent to your inbox.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Most Popular

WNN Exclusive Interview with Social Security Whistleblowers Sarah Carver and Jennifer Griffith — Part 2

Change the Culture, Make National Whistleblower Day Permanent

Tell President Biden to “Finish the Job” for Whistleblowers

Whistleblower Advocates See Parallels to Enron in Silicon Valley Bank Collapse

Whistleblower Jóhannes Stefánsson Plans to Testify at Fishrot Trial in Namibia

WNN Exclusive Interview with Social Security Whistleblowers Sarah Carver and Jennifer Griffith — Part 1

Whistleblower Poll

Whistleblower Poll
Whistleblower Poll

Exclusive Marist Poll: Overwhelming Public Support Among Likely Voters For Increased Whistleblower Protections

byGeoff Schweller
October 6, 2020

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

STAY INFORMED.
Subscribe to receive breaking whistleblower updates.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

About Us

  • About
  • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Careers

Subscribe

  • Daily Mail
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • YouTube Channel

Contribute

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Submission Guidelines
  • Reprint Guidelines

Your Experience

  • Accessibility Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use

Help

  • The Whistleblowers Handbook
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Advertise
Whistleblower Network News

Whistleblower Network News is an independent online newspaper providing our readers with up-to-date information on whistleblowing. Our goal is to be the best source of information on important qui tam, anti-corruption, compliance, and whistleblower law developments. 

Submit an Article

Copyright © 2021, Whistleblower Network News. All Rights Reserved.

This Newspaper/Web Site is made available by the publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this website, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the Newspaper/Web Site publisher. The Newspaper/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

SIGN THE PETITION FOR NATIONAL WHISTLEBLOWER DAY IN 2023
No Result
View All Result
  • Exclusives
  • Government
    • False Claims-Qui Tam
    • Federal Employees
    • Intelligence
  • Corporate
    • CFTC & Commodities
    • Dodd-Frank
    • IRS & Tax
    • SEC & Securities
  • Features
  • Legislation
  • International
    • Foreign Corruption
  • Rewards
  • Whistleblower of the Week
  • Environment & Climate
  • Opinion
  • Editorial
  • Employment
    • Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblowers
    • Retaliation
    • OSHA
  • Media
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Webinars
    • National Whistleblower Day
  • Whistleblower Poll
  • Whistleblower Resources
    • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Resources for Locating An Attorney
    • The New Whistleblowers Handbook
  • National Whistleblower Day ’23

Copyright © 2020, Whistleblower Network News. All Rights Reserved.

Become a Whistleblower Network News Subscriber

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Subscribe to WNN

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Subscribe to WNN

Add New Playlist

Go to mobile version