Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics

42 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. The Second Circuit agrees–an oral complaint to a supervisor may support a retaliation complaint under the FLSA

    Crenshaw, Ware & Martin PLCElaine I. HoganMarch 27, 2018

    Back in 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that an oral complaint can serve as the grounds for a retaliation claim under the FLSA. See Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 131 S. Ct. 1325 (2011). But in Kasten, the oral complaint was made to a government agency and so the question still remained—what about an oral complaint to a supervisor?

  2. The Second Circuit agrees–an oral complaint to a supervisor may support a retaliation complaint under the FLSA

    Crenshaw, Ware & Martin PLCElaine HoganMay 22, 2015

    Back in 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that an oral complaint can serve as the grounds for a retaliation claim under the FLSA. See Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 131 S. Ct. 1325 (2011). But in Kasten, the oral complaint was made to a government agency and so the question still remained—what about an oral complaint to a supervisor?

  3. The FLSA And Protected Activity

    Oberti/Sullivan LLPMay 7, 2013

    Earlier today we released a video podcast on what constitutes protected activity under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). All of our videos can be found on our video podcast page.As our paper discusses, a sufficiently specific internal complaint, whether oral or written, is protected from retaliation under the FLSA — except perhaps in the Second Circuit.In Kasten v. Saint–Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., __ U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 1325 (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employee’s oral complaint could fall within the purview of the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision. The Court expressly declined to address the issue of whether the complaint had to be made to a government agency or whether an internal, intra-company complaint would be covered under the anti-retaliation provision.

  4. George v. Junior Achievement Of Central Indiana, Inc., No. 11-3291 (7th Cir. Sept. 4, 2012)

    Outten & Golden LLPPaul MollicaSeptember 4, 2012

    The textual puzzle was whether the word "inquiry" meant "question," broadly conceived, or something more akin to "inquest," suggesting something official. Citing the recent Supreme Court decision in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp, 131 S. Ct. 1325, 1331 (2011), concerning a comparable issue under the FLSA, the panel holds:"Junior Achievement favors the formal understandings, but Kasten warns against discarding definitions that would make sense in the statutory context. Kasten held that retaliation because an 'employee has filed any complaint' (29 U.S.C. §215(a)(3)) is not limited to written filings.

  5. Three's Company: 2011 Yields Three Employment Law Decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court

    Frost Brown Todd LLCMay 10, 2011

    The law requires more from an employer when its supervisor is accused of discrimination, and failing to take those additional steps can unintentionally put an employer on the hook for intentional discrimination.III. Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics - the FLSA's Anti-Retaliation Provision Protects Oral, as well as Written, ComplaintsIn Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Perf. Plastics Corp., 131 S.Ct. 1325 (2011), the Supreme Court resolved a split of authority among federal appellate circuits as to whether the FLSA's retaliation prohibition protects employees who make oral - not just written - complaints about violations of the act. In a 6-2* decision, the Court held affirmatively that it did.

  6. FLSA Retaliation Provisions Protect Anticipated Collective Action Members, Third Circuit Holds

    Jackson Lewis P.C.September 30, 2022

    n 15 uses the phrase ‘about to testify,’ suggesting some sense of certainty and immediacy as opposed to mere possibility.” In this case, Uronis had not alleged that he or other putative class members “were subpoenaed to testify or that they were told they would be called upon to testify, nor ha[d] he alleged any facts that Defendants had a reason to know that [he] or any others would be testifying.” Uronis appealed and the Third Circuit reversed.Third Circuit DecisionNoting first that “Congress included in the FLSA an antiretaliation provision . . . to encourage employees to assert their rights without ‘fear of economic retaliation [which] might often operate to induce aggrieved employees to quietly accept substandard conditions,” the Third Circuit stated that the FLSA “must not be interpreted or applied in a narrow, grudging manner.” In support of this position, the Court of Appeals cited to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, 563 U.S. 1 (2011), in which the Court held that an oral complaint of an FLSA violation constitutes protected activity, even though the statute (in a companion subsection) refers to a complaint that has been “filed,” which most commonly is interpreted to require a written document.In so holding, the Supreme Court reasoned that to limit the scope of Section 15(a)(3) to the filing of written complaints would foul Congress’ intent by ‘prevent[ing] Government agencies from using hotlines, interviews, and other oral methods of receiving complaints’ and ‘discourag[ing] the use of desirable informal workplace grievance procedures to secure compliance with the [FLSA].’” The Court further noted that it had interpreted an analogous provision of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to protect conduct not explicitly listed in that NLRA, specifically, to extend anti-retaliation protection to individuals who merely had participated in a National Labor Relations Board investigation, even though the language of the

  7. Part 1: New OFCCP Directive on “Pay Equity Audits” Raises More Questions Than it Answers

    DirectEmployers AssociationJohn FoxMarch 21, 2022

    At some point, however, the federal agency follows the practice lacking a formal Notice and Comment Rulemaking uniformly enough and long enough that it stands in as a replacement for formal Notice and Comment.See Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212, 219-20 (2002) (the Agency’s regulations reflect the Agency’s own longstanding interpretation . . . [T]his Court will normally accord particular deference to an agency interpretation of “longstanding’ duration”); Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 487 (2004) (recognizing that “longstanding agency interpretations” are entitled to particular deference, and thus upholding agency construction, in part, because it was reflected in interpretive guides the Agency had published several times); Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, 563 U.S. 1, 15 (2011) (agency Rule upheld since courts must accord deference to agencies’ view in part because of “[t]he length of time the agencies have held them”); Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005) (“longstanding interpretation” of nearly 25 years by the U.S. Department of Labor and the EEOC as to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act supported authorization of relief on a disparate-impact theory of discrimination).And, of course one of the interesting foibles of each of the last three OFCCP Administrations has been that they each started their work at the agency as though there had been no prior history before they arrived. History began for the first time with them.

  8. Looking Back: Spotlight on Justice Breyer’s Employment Law Legacy

    Jackson Lewis P.C.Stephanie Adler-PaindirisFebruary 23, 2022

    With characteristic pragmatism, Justice Breyer wrote, “Many reasonable employees would find a month without a paycheck to be a serious hardship …. A reasonable employee facing the choice between retaining her job (and paycheck) and filing a discrimination complaint might well choose the former.”Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 563 U.S. 1 (2011)Bottom Line: Held that “complaint” as used in the FLSA included oral and written complaints.Kevin Kasten claimed that his employer, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, committed FLSA violations because the location of the time clocks prevented employees from accurately recording time spent donning and doffing their required protective gear.

  9. Court Strikes Down Largest Non-Willful FBAR Penalty Ever

    Freeman LawMatthew RobertsOctober 10, 2020

    The Court summarized the rule of lenity as follows:The rule of lenity is a principle of statutory construction that ‘applies primarily to the interpretation of criminal statutes.’ Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 563 U.S. 1, 16 (2011). It dictates that courts resolve ambiguities in criminal statutes in favor of defendants.

  10. Are Oral Complaints Protected Under The FLSA’s Anti-Retaliation Provision?

    Briggs and Morgan, PADanielle FitzsimmonsSeptember 19, 2016

    Yes. In a decision issued March 22, 2011, the United States Supreme Court held that an oral complaint of an alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) is protected conduct under the Act’s anti-retaliation provision in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., No. 09-834, 563 U.S. ____ (2011). The plaintiff in the case, Kevin Kasten, alleged that his employer Saint-Gobain violated the FLSA by placing its timeclocks in a location that prevented workers from receiving credit for the time they spent putting on and taking off their work clothes.