Katz, Marshall & Banks partner Debra Katz published the commentary “Are oral complaints to supervisors protected under wage-and-hour law?” on the Supreme Court Insider blog of The National Law Journal. In the article Ms. Katz comments on Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp, a case pending before the Supreme Court. Kevin Kasten, the plaintiff, claims that his termination from Saint-Gobain’s high performance polymer products manufacturing facility was motivated by internal oral complaints he voiced regarding the fairness and legality of the company’s timekeeping system, which he claims is a complaint protected against retaliation by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The defendant claims that the wording of the FLSA’s anti-retaliation clause, “file a complaint,” grants protection against retaliation only to those who file written complaints with a government body, not verbal complaints to internal management. The case was granted certiorari by the Supreme Court to examine “whether an oral complaint is protected conduct under FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision.” Ms. Katz writes in favor of granting protection to internal oral complaints, arguing that there is no practically relevant distinction between oral and written complaints, as many grievances are made and resolved verbally in the workplace. She further warns that denying retaliation protections to those who voice oral complaints would have the unintended consequences of deterring employees from voicing grievances in fear of retaliation, motivating employers to fire those who voice verbal complaints to prevent further written complaints, and disproportionately affecting workers with low incomes or with limited writing or language skills.
This is the first in a four-part commentary on employment law cases pending before the Supreme Court this term.
Read the full commentary here.