[T]he statute requires fair notice. Although the dictionary definitions, statutes,regulations, and judicial opinions we considered . . . do not distinguish between writings and oral statements, they do suggest that a “filing” is a serious occasion, rather than a triviality. As such, the phrase “filed any complaint” contemplates some degree of formality, certainly to the point where the recipient has been given fair notice that a grievance has been lodged and does, or should, reasonably understand the matter as part of its business concerns.The full decision in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. can be read at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-834.pdf
Moreover, the statute prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee “because such employee has filed any complaint.” [29 U.S.C.] §215(a)(3) (emphasis added).And it is difficult to see how an employer who does not (or should not) know an employee has made a complaint could discriminate because of that complaint. But we also believe that a fair notice requirement does not necessarily mean that notice must be in writing.
* * *
To fall within the scope of the antiretaliation provision, a complaint must 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. This standard can be met, however, by oral complaints, as well as by written ones.
A blog about legal issues affecting Tennessee employers from the employer's point of view.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
US Supreme Court Says Oral FLSA Complaints are Protected
Resolving a split in the federal courts of appeals, the Supreme Court today held that an oral complaint of a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act is protected conduct under the FLSA's anti-retaliation provision. Here is the interesting part:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment