Tahminah blog

Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics: Supreme Court to decide on workplace retaliation against verbal complaints

In , the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether employees making verbal complaints are protected under a federal labor law barring retaliation against workers who complain of workplace statutory violations.

What led to this lawsuit?

Employees at St. Gobain Performance Plastics were required to wear company-issued protective clothing. The company required hourly laborers to put on the clothing before punching the time clock and to remove it afterward. As a result, employees worked from 20 minutes to 2.5 hours per week without pay to comply with the company's dress requirements.

Kevin Kasten followed a company-mandated internal complaint resolution procedure, verbally telling his supervisors as he worked his way up the chain of command that he believed the practice was illegal. After he made his complaints, he was subject to a spate of disciplinary reprimands. Kasten was suspended for alleged disciplinary infractions. During his suspension, the company fired him after learning that he was discussing possible class-action litigation.

How did the case come before the Supreme Court?

Kasten filed a lawsuit in district court, claiming that he was fired in retaliation for his time clock complaints and threats of legal action. The company moved for summary judgment arguing that oral complaints could not be "filed" as required to trigger protection from a federal statute. The district court agreed with the employer, and Kasten appealed to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court affirmed the judgment of the district court. In doing so, it rejected the position of the U.S. Department of Labor, which had filed a friend of court brief supporting Kasten. Kasten applied for a rehearing, and the circuit court denied the motion. Then Kasten appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What is the issue before the court?

The court will decide whether the Fair Labor Standards Act provision protecting an employee who "files" a complaint of unfair labor practices from retaliation covers verbal as well as written complaints. The court will decide whether filing a complaint required putting the complaint in writing; if not, the court must determine how formal a process is required for a verbal complaint to be covered by the statute.

The court will also decide whether the FLSA stipulation requiring complaint refers only to complaints made to the government or also covers complaints made to management.

Why does this case matter?

During oral argument on Oct. 13, the justices expressed concern with the concept of oral complaints being adequate to trigger the anti-retaliation protections of the FLSA. The court seemed concerned about whether an employee's verbal report would necessarily be interpreted as a complaint by management, and if so, under what circumstances.

This case is also important because it will resolve discrepant opinions by various circuit courts as to whether an oral complaint can be considered "filed."