How on Earth Can You Possibly "File" an Oral Complaint?: An Analysis of the Boundaries of § 215(a)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act

By Ross, Scott C. | St. John's Law Review, October 1, 2010 | Go to article overview

How on Earth Can You Possibly "File" an Oral Complaint?: An Analysis of the Boundaries of § 215(a)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act


Ross, Scott C., St. John's Law Review


INTRODUCTION

The Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA" or the "Act") requires most employers to pay minimum wages and overtime to employees working more than forty hours per week.1 To protect employees from retaliation by their employer if they "file any complaint" with regard to FLSA-related issues, Congress enacted § 215(a)(3).2 Despite the seemingly plain and clear meaning of the phrase "filed any complaint," courts are split over how to interpret this language. Specifically, the courts of appeals are divided on the question of whether § 215(a)(3) protects employees who make informal oral complaints-for example, oral complaints made at work to a supervisor.3 The strict view is that the plain language of this provision limits the causes of action.4 The broad interpretation protects oral complaints because § 215(a)(3) was meant to address employee fears of retaliation for raising complaints.5

As the split between the circuits grows and the number of retaliatory complaints increases,6 resolution of the inter-circuit dispute becomes increasingly important.7 While the goal of the FLSA is to protect employees, an interpretation of § 215(a)(3) that protects any oral complaint made in the workplace- informal oral complaints-would put employers at a disadvantage. First, the FLSA is already deferential to employees. But if an expansive approach is adopted, the employer will have to disprove that the employee verbally complained, a much more difficult task than if the employee had to follow a more formal procedure, particularly during discovery.8 Second, protecting oral complaints opens the courts up to frivolous lawsuits where an employee "manufacture[s] a retaliation claim" after being fired.9 Third, as a result of frivolous lawsuits, employers will be subject to significant penalties if the employee is successful.10 An employer may even be forced to settle with an undeserving employee so as to avoid litigation costs and potential liability.

This Note argues that it is necessary to find a balance between the liberal and strict approaches when interpreting the anti-retaliatory provision of the FLSA. Part I of this Note provides background on the FLSA, its retaliatory provision, and a proposed amendment to the retaliatory provision currently before the Senate and House of Representatives. Part II addresses the various arguments the courts of appeals consider to arrive at their conclusion on how to interpret § 215(a)(3), including abiding by the plain language, examining the purpose of the Act, and comparing it to similar anti-retaliation provisions. Though the language is unambiguous, Part III argues that the policy and purpose of § 215(a)(3) requires courts to look past its clear language. However, this Note concludes that it would be improper for courts to protect informally made oral complaints from retaliation. As a matter of best practice, an employee should be required to put his complaint in writing in order to be covered by § 215(a)(3).11

I. THE HISTORY AND BACKGROUND OF THE FLSA AND ITS RETALIATORY PROVISION

The history and background of the FLSA is important to understand before examining its retaliation scheme. This background understanding describes what Congress did, and did not, intend when creating § 215(a)(3). In addition, while the anti-retaliation provision has not changed for seventy-two years, there are proposed amendments to § 215(a)(3) currently pending before the Senate and House of Representatives.12

A. The FLSA Was Enacted as a Means of Protecting Employees

The FLSA was passed by Congress and signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on June 25, 1938 in the heart of the Great Depression.13 President Roosevelt declared that it was perhaps "the most far-reaching, . . . far-sighted program for the benefit of workers ever adopted."14 The central aim of the act was to achieve certain minimum labor standards.15 The Supreme Court has stated that the "remedial and humanitarian" provisions of the FLSA as a whole are not to be applied in a "narrow, grudging manner. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

How on Earth Can You Possibly "File" an Oral Complaint?: An Analysis of the Boundaries of § 215(a)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.