The Supreme Court holds that the fair labor standard act's anti-retaliation provision includes oral as well as written complaints.

The plaintiff alleged that his employment was terminated after he made several oral complaints to his supervisors and his employer's representatives concerning potential violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The trial court and the Court of Appeals determined that the plaintiff's retaliation claim failed as a matter of law, holding that the Fair Labor Standards Act did not protect oral complaints. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the lower courts' decisions, holding that "an oral complaint violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act is protected conduct under the [Act's] anti-retaliation provision." In so holding, the Supreme Court initially examined the anti-retaliation provision itself, which forbids employers from "discharge[ing] or in any other manner discriminat[ing] against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint." Although the Supreme Court conceded that the phrase "filed any complaint" was ambiguous and did not, by itself, provide any rationale for whether the provision may or may not encompass oral complaints, it reasoned that several functional considerations indicate that Congress intended the anti-retaliation provision to cover oral as well as written complaints. Specifically, the Court noted that limiting the provision to only written complaints would undermine the Act's basic objectives to prohibit "labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers" and would prevent the government agencies from using hotlines, interviews and other oral methods for receiving complaints. Although the Supreme Court unequivocally determined that the provision covers oral complaints, it did not decide (because the employer did not seek certiorari on the issue) whether the anti-retaliation provision covers complaints made to private employers, as opposed to the government. From this, it is anticipated that the plaintiffs (and their attorneys) will be filing more claims for purported retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act that are premised on their internal complaints to their supervisors.

Case Law Alert - 3rd Qtr 2011