Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Copyright © 2016 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without
the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
Case 21.2
KASTEN V. SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORPORATION
Supreme Court of the United States
563 U.S. 1; 131 S. Ct. 1325; 2011 U.S. LEXIS 2417 [March 22, 2011]
FACTS:
The petitioner, Kevin Kasten, brought an anti-retaliation lawsuit against his former employer, Saint-
Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation (Saint-Gobain).
Kasten argued that Saint-Gobain located its time clocks between the area where Kasten and other
workers put on and took off their work-related protective gear and the area where they carry out
their assigned tasks.
That location prevented workers from receiving credit for the time they spent putting on and
taking off their work clothes—contrary to the Act’s requirements.
In a related suit the District Court agreed with Kasten, finding that Saint-Gobain’s practice of not
compensating….for time spent donning and doffing certain required protective gear and walking to
work areas violated the Act [Kasen v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 556 F. Supp. 2d 941,
954 (WD Wis. 2008)].
In this suit, Kasten claims unlawful retaliation. He claims that Saint-Gobain discharged him because
he orally complained to Saint-Gobain officials about the time clocks.
In particular, Kasten says that he repeatedly called the unlawful time clock location to Saint-
Gobain’s attention—in accordance with the employer’s internal grievance-resolution procedure.
Saint-Gobain’s Code of Ethics and Business Conduct imposed upon every employee “the
responsibility to report…suspected violations of…any applicable law of which he or she becomes
aware.” The handbook instructed employees with “questions, complaints, and problems” to
“contact their supervisors immediately” and if necessary “take the issue to the next level of
management,” then to the “local Human Resources Manager,” then to “Human Resources”
personnel at the “Regional” or “Headquarters” level.
Kasten adds that he “raised a concern” with his shift supervisor that “it was illegal for the time
clocks to be where they were” because of Saint-Gobain’s exclusion of “the time you come in and
start doing stuff;” he told a human resources employee that “if they were to get challenged on” the
location in court, “they would lose.”
He told his lead operator that the location was illegal and that he “was thinking about starting a
lawsuit about the placement of the time clocks;” and he told the human resources manager and
the operations manager that he thought the location was illegal and that the company would
“lose” in court.
This activity, Kasten contends, led the company to discipline him in December 2006, and to dismiss
him.
PROCEDURE: The District Court entered summary judgment in Saint-Gobain’s favor. The Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
ISSUE: Whether an oral complaint of a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is protected
conduct under the Act’s anti-retaliation provision?
Copyright © 2016 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without
the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
DECISION: Yes. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was vacated, and the case was remanded.
RULE: “The anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA forbids employers to discharge or in any other
manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or
instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to the Act, or has testified or is
about to testify in such proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an industry committee.”
[Section 215(a)(3)]
REASONING:
1. The FLSA protects employees who have “filed any complaint,” and interpretation of this phrase
“depends upon reading the whole statutory text, and consulting any precedents or authorities that
inform the analysis.” The Court decided it must look further at the phrase “filed any complaint.”
2. The Court questioned why Congress would want to limit the enforcement scheme’s effectiveness
by inhibiting use of the Act’s complaint procedure by those who would find it difficult to reduce
that this standard can be met by oral complaints, as well as written ones.
6. The Secretary of Labor has consistently held the view that the words “filed any complaint” cover
oral, as well as written complaints. Also, the EEOC has set forth a similar view in its Compliance
Manual. The Court determined that these agency views were reasonable and consistent with the
Act.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
In addition to the dictionary definitions, the Court found that legislators, administrators, and judges
have all sometimes used the word “file” in conjunction with oral statements.
Regulations promulgated by various federal agencies sometimes permit complaints to be filed
find that the statute remained sufficiently ambiguous to warrant application of the rule of lenity.
The “rule of lenity,” applies primarily to the interpretation of criminal statutes. It leads to a more
lenient interpretation of a criminal statute “when, after consulting traditional canons of statutory
construction, the Court is left with an ambiguous statute.”
